[House Report 113-102] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] 113th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113-102 _______________________________________________________________________ NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 ---------- R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 1960 together with ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]June 7, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 113th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113-102 _______________________________________________________________________ NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 __________ R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 1960 together with ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
June 7, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES One Hundred Thirteenth Congress HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., DUNCAN HUNTER, California Georgia JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado JACKIE SPEIER, California E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia RON BARBER, Arizona CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York ANDRE CARSON, Indiana VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York JON RUNYAN, New Jersey DEREK KILMER, Washington AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois MARTHA ROBY, Alabama SCOTT H. PETERS, California MO BROOKS, Alabama WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota MARC A. VEASEY, Texas PAUL COOK, California JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Purpose of the Legislation....................................... 1 Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 2 Hearings......................................................... 10 Committee Position............................................... 10 Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 10 Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 10 Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill.............. 10 Budget Authority Implication..................................... 11 DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 13 TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 13 OVERVIEW....................................................... 13 Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 13 Overview................................................... 13 Items of Special Interest.................................. 13 Apache helicopter transmission........................... 13 Lightweight combat medical evacuation systems............ 14 UH-72 Light Utility Helicopter........................... 14 Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 15 Overview................................................... 15 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 15 Overview................................................... 15 Items of Special Interest.................................. 15 Armor Brigade Combat Team force structure and industrial base................................................... 15 Abrams tank upgrades................................... 16 Bradley fighting vehicle and transmission upgrades..... 17 Improved recovery vehicle.............................. 18 Carbine program.......................................... 18 M9 product improvement strategy.......................... 19 Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 19 Overview................................................... 19 Items of Special Interest.................................. 19 Acquisition strategy for 40mm ammunition................. 19 Other Procurement, Army...................................... 20 Overview................................................... 20 Items of Special Interest.................................. 20 Army unmanned ground vehicle upgrades.................... 20 Civil Support Team information management needs.......... 20 Criteria on the Recertification and Quantity of GEM-Ts... 21 Gunshot detection systems................................ 21 Joint Tactical Radio System Manpack radio production strategy............................................... 21 Patriot Modernization Costs.............................. 22 Personal protection equipment acquisition strategy....... 24 Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 24 Overview................................................... 24 Items of Special Interest.................................. 25 F/A-18E/F advance procurement............................ 25 MQ-8 Fire Scout.......................................... 25 Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 26 Overview................................................... 26 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 26 Overview................................................... 26 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 26 Overview................................................... 26 Items of Special Interest.................................. 26 Air and Missile Defense Radar deployment on naval vessels 26 Joint High Speed Vessel report........................... 27 Littoral Combat Ship radar capabilities.................. 28 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) oversight..................... 28 Long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels.... 29 Navy Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) modernization......... 30 Navy fleet oilers........................................ 30 Use of fixed-price incentive fee contracts for ship construction contracts................................. 30 Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 31 Overview................................................... 31 Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 31 Overview................................................... 31 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 31 Overview................................................... 31 Items of Special Interest.................................. 32 A-10 oxygen delivery systems modernization............... 32 B-52 Bomber modernization programs....................... 32 Battlefield airborne communications node................. 33 C-130H Avionics and Propulsion System Modernization and Upgrade Programs....................................... 33 Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft............................ 34 MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft.................... 35 Upgraded ejection seats.................................. 36 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 36 Overview................................................... 36 Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 36 Overview................................................... 36 Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 37 Overview................................................... 37 Items of Special Interest.................................. 37 Remotely Piloted Aircraft Squadron Operations Centers for the Air National Guard................................. 37 Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 37 Overview................................................... 37 Items of Special Interest.................................. 37 Concurrent fielding of equipment for the Army National Guard and Air National Guard........................... 37 Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund...................... 39 Multiyear procurement authority for ground-based interceptors........................................... 39 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 40 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 40 Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations............... 40 Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 40 Section 111--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Stryker Vehicle Program.................................. 40 Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 40 Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for E-2D Aircraft Program......................................... 40 Section 122--Cost Limitation for CVN-78 Aircraft Carriers.. 40 Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 41 Section 131--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Multiple Variants of the C-130J Aircraft Program.................. 41 Section 132--Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of Avionics Modernization Program for C-130 Aircraft........ 41 Section 133--Retirement of KC-135R Aircraft................ 41 Section 134--Competition for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Providers........................................ 41 Subtitle E--Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 42 Section 141--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Ground- based Interceptors....................................... 42 Section 142--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tactical Wheeled Vehicles......................................... 42 Section 143--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of RQ-4 Global Hawk Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 42 Section 144--Personal Protection Equipment Procurement..... 42 Section 145--Repeal of Certain F-35 Reporting Requirements. 43 Section 146--Study on Procurement of Personal Protection Equipment................................................ 43 TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 43 OVERVIEW....................................................... 43 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............ 43 Overview................................................... 43 Items of Special Interest.................................. 43 Active protection system research and development........ 43 Army advanced multi-purpose tank round program........... 44 Army air and missile defense............................. 44 Army cargo unmanned aerial system........................ 44 Army directed energy testing............................. 45 Army modernization strategy for tactical communications waveforms.............................................. 45 Combat vehicle fuel efficiency engine development........ 46 Continued development of vehicle underbody protection systems................................................ 46 Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment............ 46 Improved turbine engine program.......................... 47 Innovative approaches in wound care research............. 47 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program...................... 48 Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System.......................................... 48 M4 Carbine powered rail system........................... 49 Man-portable electronic warfare.......................... 49 Modeling and simulation for advanced materials........... 50 Modular protective systems for wheeled vehicles.......... 50 Multi-mission electronic warfare......................... 51 Nano-scale electronics and materials..................... 51 Night vision systems engineering development............. 51 Regenerative and rehabilitative engineering.............. 52 Stryker survivability systems integration program........ 52 Tactical vehicle armor development program............... 53 Thermal injury protection in combat and tactical vehicles 53 Third generation forward-looking infrared sensors........ 54 Ultra Lightweight Reconnaissance Robotic capability...... 54 Use of simulation technology in medical training......... 54 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............ 55 Overview................................................... 55 Items of Special Interest.................................. 55 Acoustic intelligence collection capability.............. 55 Augmentation of ultra high frequency communications satellite systems using near space technologies........ 55 Carrier-based unmanned air vehicle system testing and development............................................ 56 Cognitive wireless networks for naval applications....... 56 Marine Corps unmanned airborne electronic attack systems. 57 Maritime Laser Weapon System............................. 57 Multi-Stage Supersonic Target development program........ 58 Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development........ 58 Precision Extended Range Munition Program................ 59 Prepositioned expeditionary assistance kits.............. 60 Service Life Extension of Navy Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research vessels......................... 60 Unmanned Underwater Vehicle.............................. 61 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force....... 61 Overview................................................... 61 Items of Special Interest.................................. 61 Adaptive engine technology development................... 61 Aircraft engine component laser peening.................. 62 F-35 aircraft program.................................... 62 Global Positioning System Next Generation Operational Control System......................................... 63 Hypersonic test facilities............................... 63 In-space solar electric propulsion....................... 64 Joint Space Operations Center Mission System............. 64 Joint surveillance target attack radar system............ 65 Liquid rocket engine technology.......................... 65 Metals Affordability Initiative.......................... 66 Operationally Responsive Space........................... 66 Overhead persistent infrared processing and exploitation. 67 Secure wireless networking applications.................. 68 Sense and avoid research for MQ-1 and MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft....................................... 68 Space Fence.............................................. 68 Trusted autonomy for unmanned aerial systems............. 69 Unmanned aerial systems development...................... 69 Wide area surveillance strategy.......................... 70 Wideband Global Satellite communications................. 70 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.... 71 Overview................................................... 71 Items of Special Interest.................................. 71 Advanced sensor application program...................... 71 Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System................... 72 Request for multi-year procurement authority for Standard Missile-3 Block IB beginning in FY15........ 72 Service Life Extension Program for Standard Missile-3 Block IA missile interceptor......................... 72 Standard Missile 3 Block IB ballistic missile interceptor.......................................... 73 Airborne weapons layer................................... 73 Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance Model 2 Radars 74 Ballistic Missile Defense Technology..................... 74 Missile defense directed energy application development 74 Solid Divert and Attitude Control System............... 75 Ballistic missile threat analysis........................ 75 Common Kill Vehicle for missile defense.................. 75 Conventional Prompt Global Strike........................ 76 Defense Science Board recommendations on Deterrent Response Capabilities................................ 77 Defense research in remote sensing....................... 78 Detection and threat identification technologies......... 78 Distributed Common Ground System enterprise.............. 79 Electro Magnetic Rail Gun for Missile Defense............ 79 Enhancing participation at minority-serving universities and institutions....................................... 80 Foreign directed energy threats to U.S. military systems. 81 Future missile defense sensor architectures.............. 82 Ground-based midcourse defense system.................... 82 East Coast missile defense site........................ 83 Fort Greely Missile Field 1............................ 84 Two-stage Interceptor for Ground-based Midcourse Defense.............................................. 84 High-powered microwave applications...................... 84 Highly integrated photonics.............................. 85 Human-computer interaction............................... 85 Improving military medical innovation.................... 86 Individual equipment for female service members.......... 86 Inner-aural communications hearing protection capability development............................................ 87 Iron Dome short-range rocket defense..................... 87 Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Systems.............. 88 Medical research information sharing..................... 88 Microscale liquid plasmas................................ 88 Missile defense cooperation with Japan................. 89 Mitochondrial research................................... 90 Modeling and simulation concurrency...................... 90 Modeling and simulation grand challenges................. 90 National Defense Education Program....................... 91 Next generation Aegis missile--Standard Missile 3 block IIB.................................................... 92 Non-Lethal directed energy applications.................. 92 Non-profit research institutions......................... 93 Open architecture systems................................ 93 Potential missile defense cooperation with the Republic of Korea............................................. 94 Precision Tracking Space System.......................... 95 Quantum information science.............................. 95 Report on boost phase missile defense options............ 96 Report on HALT/HASS Testing of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and Components................................. 96 Ribonucleic acid technology research..................... 97 Soft biometrics for non-cooperative identification of personnel.............................................. 97 Special operations technology development................ 98 Standardization of directed energy weapon systems characterization....................................... 98 Synthetic protein development............................ 99 Technology harvesting of the Medium Extended Air Defense System................................................. 99 Tele-medicine applications for ophthalmic injury......... 100 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System............... 100 Three dimensional integrated circuits.................... 101 U.S. Special Operations Command undersea systems strategy 101 Vertical Lift Consortium................................. 101 Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 102 Overview................................................... 102 Items of Special Interest.................................. 102 Assessment of the Army Distributed Common Ground System.. 102 Test and evaluation capabilities for electromagnetic pulse vulnerabilities.................................. 103 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 103 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 103 Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 103 Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations.............................................. 104 Section 211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ground Combat Vehicle Engineering and Manufacturing Phase....... 104 Section 212--Limitation on Milestone A Activities for Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System Program.................................... 104 Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Air Force Logistics Transformation........................... 104 Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defensive Cyberspace Operations of the Air Force......... 105 Section 215--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Precision Extended Range Munition Program................ 105 Section 216--Limitation on the Availability of Funds for the Program Manager for Biometrics of the Department of Defense.................................................. 105 Section 217--Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration Testing Requirement...................................... 105 Section 218--Long-Range Standoff Weapon Requirement........ 105 Section 219--Review of Software Development for F-35 Aircraft................................................. 105 Section 220--Evaluation and Assessment of the Distributed Common Ground Station.................................... 106 Section 221--Requirement to Complete Individual Carbine Testing.................................................. 106 Section 222--Establishment of Funding Line and Fielding Plan for Navy Laser Weapon System........................ 106 Section 223--Sense of Congress on Importance of Aligning Common Missile Compartment of Ohio-Class Replacement Program with the United Kingdom's Vanguard Successor Program.................................................. 106 Section 224--Sense of Congress on Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Missile Project.......................... 107 Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs......................... 107 Section 231--Prohibition on Use of Funds For MEADS Program. 107 Section 232--Additional Missile Defense Site in the United States for Optimized Protection of the Homeland.......... 107 Section 233--Limitation on Removal of Missile Defense Equipment from East Asia................................. 108 Section 234--Improvements to Acquisition Accountability Reports on Ballistic Missile Defense System.............. 108 Section 235--Analysis of Alternatives for Successor to Precision Tracking Space System.......................... 108 Section 236--Plan To Improve Organic Kill Assessment Capability of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System.. 108 Section 237--Availability of Funds for Iron Dome Short- Range Rocket Defense Program............................. 109 Section 238--NATO and the Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense in Europe................................ 109 Section 239--Sense of Congress on Procurement of Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle............... 109 Section 240--Sense of Congress on 30th Anniversary of the Strategic Defense Initiative............................. 109 Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 110 Section 251--Annual Comptroller General Report on the Amphibious Combat Vehicle Acquisition Program............ 110 Section 252--Report on Strategy To Improve Body Armor...... 110 Section 253--Report on Main Battle Tank Fuel Efficiency Initiative............................................... 110 Section 254--Report on Powered Rail System................. 110 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 111 Section 261--Establishment of Cryptographic Modernization Review and Advisory Board................................ 111 Section 262--Clarification of Eligibility of a State to Participate in Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research..................................... 111 Section 263--Extension and Expansion of Mechanisms to Provide Funds for Defense Laboratories for Research and Development of Technologies for Military Missions........ 111 Section 264--Extension of Authority to Award Prizes for Advanced Technology Achievements......................... 111 Section 265--Five-Year Extension of Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection Features During Research and Development of Certain Defense Systems............... 111 Section 266--Briefing on Power and Energy Research Conducted at University Affiliated Research Centers...... 111 TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 112 OVERVIEW....................................................... 112 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 113 Budget Request Adjustments................................... 113 Office of Economic Adjustment.............................. 113 Logistics and Sustainment Issues............................. 114 Air Force Fuel Leak Maintenance Efficiencies............... 114 Anti-corrosion Protective Covers for Military Hardware..... 114 Army Logisticians.......................................... 115 Comptroller General Littoral Combat System Sustainment Review................................................... 115 Continuous Technology Refreshment.......................... 116 Defense Logistics Agency Roles and Missions Assessment..... 116 Disposition of Retrograded Equipment from Afghanistan...... 117 F-35 Sustainment Plan...................................... 118 Item Unique Identification and Automated Information and Data Capture............................................. 119 Laser Peening Technology................................... 119 Logistical Support to the Department of Defense............ 120 Long-term Investment Plan for Land, Facilities, and Equipment of Former Guam Ship Repair Facility............ 120 Navy Fleet Readiness....................................... 121 Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul.................... 121 Readiness Issues............................................. 122 Advanced Situational Awareness Training.................... 122 Combat Training Centers.................................... 122 Comptroller General Encroachment Study..................... 122 GAO Review of DOD Readiness and Risks...................... 124 Identification of Foreign-Language Competency.............. 125 Missile Defense Capabilities for Guam...................... 125 Navy Expeditionary Combat Command.......................... 126 Military Ocean Terminal Concord............................ 126 Report on Career Progression of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps Advisory Personnel................................. 127 Sustainable Range Planning................................. 128 Water Egress Training...................................... 128 Other Matters................................................ 129 Concerns Related to Fuel Rate Determinations............... 129 Department of Defense Travel Restrictions.................. 130 Navy Arctic Roadmap........................................ 130 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters............................................. 131 Operations and Maintenance of the Ballistic Missile Defense System................................................... 131 Weather Data and Modeling.................................. 131 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 132 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 132 Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 132 Subtitle B--Energy and Environment........................... 132 Section 311--Deadline for Submission of Reports on Proposed Budgets for Activities Relating to Operational Energy Strategy................................................. 132 Section 312--Facilitation of Interagency Cooperation in Conservation Programs of the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Interior to Avoid or Reduce Adverse Impacts on Military Readiness Activities................. 132 Section 313--Reauthorization of Sikes Act.................. 132 Section 314--Cooperative Agreements Under Sikes Act for Land Management Related to Department of Defense Readiness Activities..................................... 133 Section 315--Exclusions from Definition of ``Chemical Substance'' under Toxic Substances Control Act........... 133 Section 316--Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement................. 133 Section 317--Clarification of Prohibition on Disposing of Waste in Open-Air Burn Pits.............................. 133 Section 318--Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or Construction of Biofuels Refineries...................... 133 Section 319--Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels......... 133 Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 134 Section 321--Littoral Combat Ship Strategic Sustainment Plan..................................................... 134 Section 322--Review of Critical Manufacturing Capabilities within Army Arsenals..................................... 134 Section 323--Inclusion of Army Arsenals Capabilities in Solicitations............................................ 134 Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 134 Section 331--Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to Personnel and Unit Readiness............................. 134 Section 332--Repeal of Annual Comptroller General Report on Army Progress............................................ 135 Section 333--Revision to Requirement for Annual Submission of Information Regarding Information Technology Capital Assets................................................... 135 Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority.......... 135 Section 341--Limitation on Reduction of Force Structure at Lajes Air Force Base, Azores............................. 135 Section 342--Prohibition on Performance of Department of Defense Flight Demonstration Teams Outside the United States................................................... 136 Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 136 Section 351--Requirement to Establish Policy on Joint Combat Uniforms.......................................... 136 TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 136 OVERVIEW....................................................... 136 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 137 Operational Reserves......................................... 137 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 137 Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 137 Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 137 Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels........................................... 138 Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 138 Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 138 Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves.................................. 138 Section 413-- End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status).................................................. 139 Section 414--Fiscal Year 2014 Limitation on Number of Non- Dual Status Technicians.................................. 139 Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 140 Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 140 Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 140 TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 140 OVERVIEW....................................................... 140 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 141 Air Force Education Programs................................. 141 Assessing the Trend in Costs of General and Flag Officers on Active Duty................................................ 142 Clarification of Conferees Statement on the Assignments of Military Officers as Academic Instructors at Military Service Academies as Joint Duty Assignments................ 142 Community-Based Youth Organizations.......................... 143 Comptroller General Review of Recommendations to Prevent Sexual Misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base and Other Basic and Technical Training Facilities.................... 143 Consistency Among Exceptional Family Member Programs......... 144 Disposition of Remains by Host Nations....................... 144 Domestic Violence and Child Abuse............................ 145 Department of Defense Efforts to Ensure Operation of Current Prohibition on Accrual of Interest on Direct Student Loans of Members of the Armed Forces Receiving Imminent Danger Pay........................................................ 145 Foreign Exchange Program for Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets and Critical Military Language Training............. 145 Fully Burdened Life Cycle Cost of Military Personnel......... 146 Mental Health Professional on a Physical Evaluation Board.... 147 National Support for Service Members, Veterans, Retirees and their Families............................................. 147 Navy Sea Cadet Corps Sustainment............................. 148 Relocation Assistance Program Resource Access Review......... 148 Reserve Component Temporary Duty Assignments................. 148 Review of Programs for Male Victims of Sexual Assault in the U.S. Military.............................................. 149 Suicides and Military Families............................... 149 Support for the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children...................................... 150 Transition Assistance Program................................ 150 Tuition Assistance........................................... 150 U.S. Special Operations Command Educational Initiatives...... 151 Use of Radio in Department of Defense Advertising............ 151 Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.......................... 152 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 152 Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally............... 152 Section 501--Limitations on Number of General and Flag Officers on Active Duty.................................. 152 Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 153 Section 511--Minimum Notification Requirements for Members of Reserve Components Before Deployment or Cancellation of Deployment Related to a Contingency Operation......... 153 Section 512--Information to be Provided to Boards Considering Officers for Selective Early Removal from Reserve Active-Status List............................... 153 Section 513--Temporary Authority to Maintain Active Status and Inactive Status Lists of Members in the Inactive National Guard........................................... 153 Section 514--Review of Requirements and Authorizations for Reserve Component General and Flag Officers in an Active Status................................................... 154 Section 515--Feasibility Study on Establishing a Unit of the National Guard in American Samoa and in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands............. 154 Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 154 Section 521--Review of Integrated Disability Evaluation System................................................... 154 Section 522--Compliance Requirements for Organizational Climate Assessments...................................... 154 Section 523--Command Responsibility and Accountability for Remains of Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Who Die Outside the United States........... 155 Section 524--Contents of Transition Assistance Program..... 155 Section 525--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel Decisions Relating to Correction of Military Records.................................................. 155 Section 526--Establishment And Use of Consistent Definition of Gender-Neutral Occupational Standard For Military Career Designators....................................... 155 Section 527--Expansion and Enhancement of Authorities Relating to Protected Communications of Members of The Armed Forces and Prohibited Retaliatory Actions.......... 156 Section 528--Applicability of Medical Examination Requirement Regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury to Proceedings Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice................................. 156 Section 529--Protection of the Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains to Close a Prayer Outside of a Religious Service According to the Traditions, Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing Faith Group.............................................. 156 Section 530--Expansion and Implementation of Protections of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members................................ 156 Section 530A--Service Members' Accountability, Rights, and Responsibilities Training................................ 157 Section 530B--Inspector General of the Department of Defense Review of Separation of Members of the Armed Forces who Made Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault... 157 Section 530C--Report on Data and Information Collected in Connection with Department of Defense Review of Laws, Policies, and Regulations Restricting Service of Female Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 157 Section 530D--Sense of Congress Regarding the Women in Service Implementation Plan.............................. 157 Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters, Including Sexual Assault Prevention and Response................... 158 Section 531--Limitations on Convening Authority Discretion Regarding Court-Martial Findings and Sentence............ 158 Section 532--Elimination of Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Trial By Court-Martial for Additional Offenses Involving Sex-Related Crimes.................... 158 Section 533--Discharge or Dismissal for Certain Sex-Related Offenses and Trial of Offenses by General Courts-Martial. 159 Section 534--Regulations Regarding Consideration of Application for Permanent Change of Station or Unit Transfer by Victims of Sexual Assault.................... 159 Section 535--Consideration of Need for, and Authority to Provide for, Temporary Administrative Reassignment or Removal of a Member on Active Duty Who is Accused of Committing a Sexual Assault or Related Offense........... 159 Section 536--Victims' Counsel for Victims of Sex-Related Offenses and Related Provisions.......................... 160 Section 537--Inspector General Investigation of Allegations of Retaliatory Personnel Actions Taken in Response to Making Protected Communications Regarding Sexual Assault. 160 Section 538--Secretary Defense Report on Role of Commanders in Military Justice Process.............................. 160 Section 539--Review and Policy Regarding Department of Defense Investigative Practices in Response to Allegations of Sex-Related Offenses...................... 161 Section 540--Uniform Training and Education Programs for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program........... 161 Section 541--Development of Selection Criteria for Assignment as Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Program Managers, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates...................... 161 Section 542--Extension of Crime Victims' Rights to Victims of Offenses Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice... 161 Section 543--Defense Counsel Interview of Complaining Witnesses in Presence of Counsel for the Complaining Witnesses or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate............ 162 Section 544--Participation by Complaining Witness in Clemency Phase of Courts-Martial Process................. 162 Section 545--Eight-Day Incident Reporting Requirement in Response to Unrestricted Report of Sexual Assault in Which the Victim is a Member of the Armed Forces......... 162 Section 546--Amendment to Manual for Courts-Martial to Eliminate Considerations Relating to Character and Military Service of Accused in Initial Disposition of Sex-Related Offenses..................................... 163 Section 547--Inclusion of Letters of Reprimand, Nonpunitive Letters of Reprimand and Counseling Statements........... 163 Section 548--Enhanced Protections for Prospective Members and New Members of the Armed Forces During Entry-Level Processing and Training.................................. 163 Section 549--Independent Reviews and Assessments of Uniform Code of Military Justice and Judicial Proceedings of Sexual Assault Cases..................................... 163 Section 550--Review of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity Role in Sexual Harassment Cases.... 164 Subtitle E--Military Family Readiness........................ 164 Section 551--Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses of Members of the Armed Forces Who Serve in Combat Zones. 164 Section 552--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements For Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces.............. 164 Section 553--Treatment of Relocation of Members of the Armed Forces for Active Duty for Purposes of Mortgage Refinancing.............................................. 164 Section 554--Family Support Programs for Immediate Family Members of Members of the Armed Forces Assigned to Special Operations Forces................................ 164 Subtitle F--Education and Training Opportunities and Administration........................................... 165 Section 561--Inclusion of Freely Associated States within Scope of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program. 165 Section 562--Improved Climate Assessments and Dissemination and Tracking of Results.................................. 165 Section 563--Service-wide 360 Assessments.................. 165 Section 564--Health Welfare Inspections.................... 165 Section 565--Review of Security of Military Installations, Including Barracks and multi-family residences........... 166 Section 566--Enhancement of Mechanisms to Correlate Skills and Training for Military Occupational Specialties with Skills and Training Required for Civilian Certification and Licenses............................................. 166 Section 567--Use of Educational Assistance for Courses in Pursuit of Civilian Certifications or Licenses........... 166 Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education.................... 166 Section 571--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees................................................ 166 Section 572--Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement and Transition of Military Dependent Students 167 Section 573--Treatment of Tuition Payments Received for Virtual Elementary and Secondary Education Component of Department of Defense Education Program.................. 167 Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards........................... 167 Section 581--Fraudulent Representations about Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals........................... 167 Section 582--Repeal of Limitation on Number of Medals of Honor That May Be Awarded to the same Member of the Armed Forces................................................... 167 Section 583--Standardization of Time-Limits for Recommending and Awarding Medal of Honor, Distinguished- Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, and Distinguished-Service Medal.............................. 167 Section 584--Recodification and Revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll Requirements.. 167 Section 585--Treatment of Victims of the Attacks at Recruiting Station in Little Rock, Arkansas, and at Fort Hood, Texas.............................................. 168 Section 586--Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge. 168 Section 587--Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions Pertaining to Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta.................................. 168 Section 588--Authorization For Award Of The Distinguished- Service Cross To Sergeant First Class Robert F. Keiser For Acts Of Valor During The Korean War.................. 168 Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 169 Section 591--Revision of Specified Senior Military Colleges to Reflect Consolidation of North Georgia College and State University and Gainesville State College........... 169 Section 592--Authority to Enter into Concessions Contracts at Army National Military Cemeteries..................... 169 Section 593--Commission on Military Behavioral Health and Disciplinary Issues...................................... 169 Section 594--Commission on Service to the Nation........... 169 TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 170 OVERVIEW....................................................... 170 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 170 Military Exchanges, Commissaries, and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities...................................... 170 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 170 Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 170 Section 601--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary Increase in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances.................................... 170 Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 171 Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 171 Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals.... 171 Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 171 Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities........................................ 171 Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays....... 172 Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authority to Provide Incentive Pay for Members of Precommissioning Programs Pursuing Foreign Language Proficiency.................... 172 Section 617--Authority to Provide Bonus to Certain Cadets and Midshipmen Enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps........................................... 172 Subtitle C--Disability, Retired Pay, Survivor, and Transitional Benefits.................................... 172 Section 621--Transitional Compensation and Other Benefits for Dependents of Certain Members Separated for Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.................. 172 Section 622--Prevention of Retired Pay Inversion for Members whose Retired Pay is Computed Using High-Three Average.................................................. 172 Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................. 173 Section 631--Expansion of Protection of Employees of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities from Reprisals.... 173 Section 632--Purchase of Sustainable Products, Local Food Products, and Recyclable Materials for Resale in Commissary and Exchange Store Systems.................... 173 Section 633--Correction of Obsolete References to Certain Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities................... 173 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 173 Section 641--Authority to Provide Certain Expenses for Care and Disposition of Human Remains Retained by the Department Of Defense for Forensic Pathology Investigation............................................ 173 Section 642--Provision of Status under Law by Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve Components as Veterans.... 174 Section 643--Survey of Military Pay and Benefits Preferences.............................................. 174 TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 174 OVERVIEW....................................................... 174 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 174 Additional Therapeutic Treatment Activities Available Under Exceptional Care Health Option............................. 174 Administration of Blood Products On-board U.S. Medical Evacuation Aircraft........................................ 175 Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs............................ 175 Department of Defense and Early Autism Diagnosis and Intervention for Military Families......................... 175 Efforts to Advance Lower Extremity Prosthetics and Orthotics. 176 Efforts to Improve Treatment for Post Traumatic Stress and Traumatic Brain Injury..................................... 176 Healthy Base Initiative...................................... 177 Military Health System Governance Reform Report.............. 177 Report on Prostate Cancer Imaging Research................... 177 Report on Provider Referrals for Ancillary Services Under TRICARE.................................................... 178 Review of the Military Health System Medical Training Consolidation.............................................. 178 Therapeutic Service Dog Training Program..................... 178 Trauma Clinical Research Repository.......................... 179 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 179 Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits.................. 179 Section 701--Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed Forces............................................. 179 Section 702--Periodic Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed Forces...................................... 180 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 180 Section 711--Future Availability of TRICARE Prime for Certain Beneficiaries Enrolled in TRICARE Prime.......... 180 Section 712--Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the Military Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities................................................. 180 Section 713--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Integrated Electronic Health Record Program.............. 180 Section 714--Pilot Program on Increased Third-Party Collection Reimbursements in Military Medical Treatment Facilities............................................... 180 Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 180 Section 721--Display of Budget Information for Embedded Mental Health Providers of the Reserve Components........ 180 Section 722--Authority of Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences to Enter Into Contracts and Agreements and Make Grants to Other Nonprofit Entities.............. 181 Section 723--Mental Health Support for Military Personnel and Families............................................. 181 Section 724--Research Regarding Hydrocephalus.............. 181 Section 725--Traumatic Brain Injury Research............... 181 TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 181 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 181 Advanced Technical Exploitation Program...................... 181 Commercial Items Pricing Information......................... 182 Competition in Air Force Network-Centric Solutions Contracts. 182 Implementation of Requirement for Designation of a Lead Inspector General for Certain Contingency Operations....... 183 Online Reverse Auctions...................................... 184 Report on Operational Contract Support in Afghanistan........ 184 Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Source Selection Processes.................................................. 185 Utilization of Standardized Services Contract Approval Form.. 186 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 187 Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 187 Section 801--Modification of Reporting Requirement for Department of Defense Business System Acquisition Programs when Initial Operating Capability is not Achieved within Five Years of Milestone A Approval....... 187 Section 802--Enhanced Transfer of Technology Developed at Department of Defense Laboratories....................... 187 Section 803--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount Available for Contract Services................... 187 Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations.............................. 187 Section 811--Additional Contractor Responsibilities in Regulations Relating to Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts............................. 187 Section 812--Amendments Relating to Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts.......................... 188 Section 813--Government-wide Limitations on Allowable Costs for Contractor Compensation.............................. 188 Section 814--Inclusion of Additional Cost Estimate Information in Certain Reports........................... 189 Section 815--Amendment Relating to Compelling Reasons for Waiving Suspension or Debarment.......................... 189 Section 816--Requirement that Cost or Price to the Federal Government be Given at Least Equal Importance as Technical or Other Criteria in Evaluating Competitive Proposals for Defense Contracts.......................... 189 Section 817--Requirement to Buy American Flags from Domestic Sources......................................... 189 Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan............ 190 Section 821--Amendments Relating to Prohibition on Contracting with the Enemy............................... 190 Section 822--Collection of Data Relating to Contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan..................................... 190 Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 190 Section 831--Extension of Pilot Program on Acquisition of Military Purpose Non-Developmental Items................. 190 Section 832--Extension of Authority to Acquire Products and Services Produced in Countries Along a Major Route of Supply to Afghanistan.................................... 191 TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 191 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 191 Air Force Force Structure.................................... 191 Air Force Materiel Command Metrics........................... 192 Air Sea Battle Office........................................ 193 Air Force High Consequence Information Technology Services... 193 Assessment of Cyber Centers of Academic Excellence........... 194 Briefing to Congress on ICBM motor stockpile................. 194 Cadastral Geographic Information Systems Inventory........... 195 Comptroller General Review of the Department of Defense's Implementation of Civilian Personnel Furloughs............. 195 Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Cyber Resiliency................................................. 195 Comptroller General Review of Conduct of Roles and Missions Analysis................................................... 196 Coordination of Cyber and Electronic Warfare Capabilities.... 198 Cost Drivers in the Department of Defense.................... 198 Critical Program Information................................. 199 Cyber Standards Framework.................................... 199 Data Management and Protection............................... 200 Defense Intelligence Collection Management................... 200 Enterprise Query and Correlation Pilot....................... 201 Exploitation of Foreign Commercial Cellular Networks......... 201 Global Response Force........................................ 201 Guidance on the Use of Borrowed Military Manpower............ 202 Guidance Regarding the Conversion of Functions Performed by Non-appropriated Fund Employees............................ 203 Input into National Intelligence Priorities Framework........ 203 Integrated Science and Technology Campus for the Defense Intelligence Agency........................................ 203 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Aircraft Utilization................................................ 204 Non-Perimeter Cyber Defenses................................. 205 Open-Source Intelligence Utilization......................... 205 Pilot to Counter Brokers of Transnational Criminal Organizations.............................................. 206 Science and Technology Community Intelligence Needs Planning. 206 Software Assurance Policy.................................... 207 Space Training............................................... 207 Technical Defense Intelligence Training...................... 208 Training Standards for Department of Defense Cyber Missions.. 208 Vulnerability of Tactical Data Links in Denied Areas......... 209 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 209 Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 209 Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 209 Section 902--Revisions to composition of transition plan for defense business enterprise architecture............. 209 Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 209 Section 911--National Security Space Satellite Reporting Policy................................................... 209 Section 912--National Security Space Defense and Protection 210 Section 913--Space Acquisition Strategy.................... 210 Section 914--Space Control Mission Report.................. 211 Section 915--Responsive Launch............................. 211 Subtitle C--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Matters.................................................. 211 Section 921--Revision of Secretary of Defense Authority to Engage in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection Activities....................... 211 Section 922--Department of Defense Intelligence Priorities. 212 Section 923--Defense Clandestine Service................... 212 Section 924--Prohibition on National Intelligence Program Consolidation............................................ 212 Subtitle D--Cyberspace-related Matters....................... 213 Section 931--Modification of Requirement for Inventory of Department of Defense Tactical Data Link Systems......... 213 Section 932--Defense Science Board assessment of United States Cyber Command..................................... 213 Section 933--Mission Analysis for Cyber Operations of Department of Defense.................................... 213 Section 934--Notification of Investigations Related to Compromise of Critical Program Information............... 214 Section 935--Additional Requirements Relating to the Software Licenses of the Department of Defense........... 214 Subtitle E--Total Force Management........................... 215 Section 941--Requirement to Ensure Sufficient Levels of Government Oversight of Functions Closely Associated with Inherently Governmental Functions........................ 215 Section 942--Five-Year Requirement for Certification of Appropriate Manpower Performance......................... 215 TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 215 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 215 Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 215 Counternarcotics Strategy in Central America............... 215 Humanitarian Efforts in U.S. Southern Command.............. 215 National Guard Bureau Counter-drug Mission................. 216 Operation Martillo......................................... 216 Transition of Tethered Aerostat Radar System Program....... 217 U.S. Southern Command Assets............................... 217 Other Matters................................................ 218 Assessment of Military Construction Project................ 218 Combatant Command Headquarters Personnel and Resources Requirements............................................. 219 Comptroller General Review of Functional Combatant Commands 220 Comptroller General Review of Medical Countermeasures Against Genetically Engineered Bio-Terror Agents......... 220 Comptroller General Review of Planning and Preparedness for Threats Posed by Non-Traditional Chemical Agents......... 221 Comptroller General Review of Role of the Army and the Marine Corps in Access-denied Areas...................... 223 Comptroller General Review of U.S. Central Command Headquarters............................................. 223 Defense Forensic Enterprise................................ 224 Detailed Report on Defense Efficiencies.................... 225 Energy Security Assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review................................................... 225 Humanitarian Mine Action and Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Technologies...................................... 225 Hybrid Airship Technology.................................. 226 Nuclear Deterrence Education in the Armed Forces........... 226 Nuclear Weapons Council and Commonality in Nuclear Forces and Nuclear Warheads..................................... 227 Personnel Growth at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and the Service Secretariats................ 228 Preventing Unfair Trade Practices in Military Equipment Sales.................................................... 229 Replacement Plan for E-4B.................................. 229 Report on Implementation of Acquisition Strategy to Minimize Costs for Defense Base Act Insurance............ 230 Report on Security Exemptions and Waivers for U.S. Nuclear Forces................................................... 230 Reporting Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution............ 230 Secure Internet Protocol Router Network for the Congressional Defense Committees......................... 230 Sustainment of Sociocultural Understanding Capabilities.... 231 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 232 Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 232 Section 1001--General Transfer Authority................... 232 Section 1002--Budgetary Effects of This Act................ 232 Section 1003--Audit of Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2018 Financial Statements................................ 232 Section 1004--Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization.................................... 232 Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 232 Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counter-drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia... 232 Section 1012--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces to Provide Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counterterrorism Activities.............................. 233 Section 1013--Two-Year Extension of Authority to Provide Additional Support for Counter-drug Activities of Certain Foreign Governments...................................... 233 Section 1014--Sense of Congress Regarding the National Guard Counter-narcotic Program........................... 233 Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 233 Section 1021--Clarification of Sole Ownership Resulting from Ship Donations at No Cost to the Navy............... 233 Section 1022--Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships............................................ 233 Section 1023--Repair of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards....... 234 Section 1024--Sense of Congress Regarding a Balanced Future Naval Force.............................................. 234 Section 1025--Authority for Short-term Extension or Renewal of Leases for Vessels Supporting the Transit Protection System Escort Program.................................... 234 Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 234 Section 1030--Clarification of Procedures for Use of Alternate Members on Military Commissions................ 234 Section 1031--Modification of Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program Reporting Requirement....... 234 Section 1032--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or Modify Facilities in the United States To House Detainees Transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba................................................ 235 Section 1033--Requirements for Certifications Relating to the Transfer of Detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities......................................... 235 Section 1034--Prohibition on the Use Of Funds for the Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............... 236 Section 1035--Unclassified Summary of Information Relating to Individuals Detained at Parwan, Afghanistan........... 236 Section 1036--Assessment of Affiliates and Adherents of Al- Qaeda Outside the United States.......................... 236 Section 1037--Designation of Department of Defense Senior Official for Facilitating the Transfer of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba..................................................... 236 Section 1038--Rank of Chief Prosecutor and Chief Defense Counsel in Military Commissions Established to Try Individuals Detained at Guantanamo....................... 237 Section 1039--Report on Capability of Yemeni Government to Detain, Rehabilitate, and Prosecute Individuals Detained at Guantanamo who are Transferred to Yemen............... 237 Section 1040--Report on Attachment of Rights to Individuals Detained at Guantanamo if Transferred to the United States................................................... 237 Section 1040A--Summary of Information Relating to Individuals Detained at Guantanamo who Became Leaders of Foreign Terrorist Groups................................. 237 Subtitle E--Sensitive Military Operations.................... 238 Section 1041--Congressional Notification of Sensitive Military Operations...................................... 238 Section 1042--Report on Process for Determining Targets of Lethal Operations........................................ 238 Section 1043--Counterterrorism Operational Briefings....... 238 Subtitle F--Nuclear Forces................................... 238 Section 1051--Prohibition on Elimination of the Nuclear Triad.................................................... 238 Section 1052--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Reduction of Nuclear Forces.............................. 239 Section 1053--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Reduction or Consolidation of Dual-Capable Aircraft Based in Europe................................................ 239 Section 1054--Statement of Policy on Implementation of Any Agreement for Further Arms Reduction Below the Levels of the New START Treaty; Limitation on Retirement Or Dismantlement of Strategic Delivery Systems.............. 239 Section 1055--Sense of Congress on Compliance with Nuclear Arms Control Agreements.................................. 240 Section 1056--Retention of Capability to Redeploy Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles................ 240 Section 1057--Assessment of Nuclear Weapons Program of the People's Republic of China............................... 241 Section 1058--Cost Estimates for Nuclear Weapons........... 241 Section 1059--Report on New START Treaty................... 241 Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 241 Section 1061--Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records................... 241 Section 1062--Extension of Authority to Provide Military Transportation Services to Certain Other Agencies at the Department of Defense Reimbursement Rate................. 242 Section 1063--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Modification of Force Structure of the Army.............. 242 Section 1064--Limitation on Use of Funds for Public-Private Cooperation Activities................................... 242 Subtitle H--Studies and Reports.............................. 243 Section 1071--Oversight of Combat Support Agencies......... 243 Section 1072--Inclusion in Annual Report of Description of Interagency Coordination Relating to Humanitarian Demining Technology...................................... 243 Section 1073--Extension of Deadline for Comptroller General Report on Assignment of Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense as Advisors to Foreign Ministries of Defense............................................... 243 Section 1074--Repeal of Requirement for Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense Efficiencies......... 243 Section 1075--Matters for Inclusion in the Assessment of the 2013 Quadrennial Defense Review...................... 244 Section 1076--Review and Assessment of United States Special Operations Forces and United States Special Operations Command....................................... 244 Section 1077--Reports on Unmanned Aircraft Systems......... 245 Section 1078--Online Availability of Reports Submitted to Congress................................................. 245 Section 1079--Provision of Defense Planning Guidance and Contingency Operation Plan Information to Congress....... 245 Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 245 Section 1081--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 245 Section 1082--Transportation of Supplies for the United States by Aircraft Operated by United States Air Carriers 245 Section 1083--Reduction in Costs to Report Critical Changes to Major Automated Information System Programs........... 246 Section 1084--Extension of Authority of Secretary of Transportation to Issue Non-Premium Aviation Insurance... 246 Section 1085--Revision of Compensation of Members of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force.... 246 Section 1086--Protection of Tier One Task Critical Assets from Electromagnetic Pulse and High-Powered Microwave Systems.................................................. 246 Section 1087--Strategy for Future Military Information Operations Capabilities.................................. 246 Section 1088--Compliance of Military Departments with Minimum Safe Staffing Standards.......................... 247 Section 1089--Determination and Disclosure of Transportation Costs Incurred by Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips Outside the United States............ 247 TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 247 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 247 National Research Council Report on Chemical Biological Defense Programs Capabilities.............................. 247 Wage Grade Pay Parity at Joint Installations................. 247 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 248 Section 1101--One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas... 248 Section 1102--One-year Extension of Discretionary Authority to Grant Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone.............. 248 Section 1103--Extension of Voluntary Reduction-In-Force Authority for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense.................................................. 248 Section 1104--Extension of Authority to Make Lump-Sum Severance Payments to Department of Defense Employees.... 248 Section 1105--Revision to Amount of Financial Assistance under Department of Defense Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Education Program.................................................. 248 Section 1106--Extension of Program for Exchange of Information-Technology Personnel......................... 248 Section 1107--Defense Science Initiative for Personnel..... 248 TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 248 OVERVIEW....................................................... 248 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 251 Assistance to Civilians in Locations where U.S. Combat Operations Occur........................................... 251 Congressional Notifications Relating To Status of Forces Agreements................................................. 252 Governance in Afghanistan and the Afghan Presidential Elections.................................................. 253 Importance of International Security Assistance Force Retrograde for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Role of U.S. European Command.......................... 253 Missile Defense Discussions between the United States and the Russian Federation......................................... 253 Missile Defense Programs of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China................................. 254 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Commitment to International Security Assistance Force Mission............ 255 Semi-Annual Reporting on Russian Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapon Deployments................................................ 255 Report and Briefings on Declassification of Certain Missile Defense Information........................................ 256 Report on Operation Observant Compass........................ 256 Report on Terms and Agreements for Retrograde of U.S. Equipment and Supplies Through the Northern Distribution Network and Pakistan....................................... 257 Report on U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan Post-2014............. 257 Report on U.S. Support to Advising Mission in Afghanistan.... 258 Resource Requirements For and Posture of Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Teams and Commanders' In-Extremis Forces.......... 259 Resource Requirements to Support U.S. Policy Objectives in Syria...................................................... 259 RIMPAC 2014 Oversight........................................ 260 Security Assistance and the Leahy Law........................ 260 Support for Military Information Sharing Agreement Between the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea and Related Initiatives........................................ 261 U.S. Extended Deterrence in Asia............................. 262 U.S. Military Engagement with Burma.......................... 262 U.S. Policy and Interagency Strategy in Iraq................. 263 U.S. Strategic Partnership with Pakistan..................... 263 U.S. Security Sector Assistance.............................. 264 Use of Missile Defense Declassification Authority by Director, Missile Defense Agency........................... 264 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 265 Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 265 Section 1201--Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating to Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces.......................................... 265 Section 1202--Three-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities.......... 266 Section 1203--Global Security Contingency Fund............. 266 Section 1204--Codification of National Guard State Partnership Program...................................... 266 Section 1205--Authority to Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Certain Foreign Countries to Respond to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria and the Region........................................... 266 Section 1206--One-Year Extension of Authority to Support Foreign Forces Participating in Operations to Disarm the Lord's Resistance Army................................... 267 Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan................................................. 267 Section 1211--One-Year Extension and Modification of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military Operations 267 Section 1212--One-Year Extension of Authority to Use Funds for Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan.............. 268 Section 1213--Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan................................... 268 Section 1214--Extension of Authority to Support Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq..................................................... 269 Section 1215--One-Year Extension and Modification of Authority for Program to Develop and Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan................... 269 Section 1216--Special Immigrant Visas for Certain Iraqi and Afghan Allies............................................ 269 Section 1217--Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense Assistance to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 100 Percent of All Taxes Assessed By Afghanistan to Extent Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed By Afghanistan............. 270 Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Afghanistan Post 2014........ 270 Section 1221--Modification of Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan.................... 270 Section 1222--Sense of Congress on United States Military Support in Afghanistan................................... 271 Section 1223--Defense Intelligence Plan.................... 271 Section 1224--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain Authorities for Afghanistan...................... 272 Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Iran......................... 273 Section 1231--Report on United States Military Partnership with Gulf Cooperation Council Countries.................. 273 Section 1232--Additional Elements in Annual Report on Military Power of Iran................................... 273 Section 1233--Sense of Congress on the Defense of the Arabian Gulf............................................. 273 Subtitle E--Reports and Other Matters........................ 273 Section 1241--Report on Posture and Readiness of United States Armed Forces to Respond to Future Terrorist Attacks in Africa and the Middle East.................... 273 Section 1242--Role of the Government of Egypt to United States National Security................................. 274 Section 1243--Sense of Congress on Military Developments on the Korean Peninsula..................................... 274 Section 1244--Sense of Congress on Defense Cooperation with Georgia.................................................. 274 Section 1245--Limitation on Establishment of Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers........... 274 Section 1246--Additional Reports on Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea................................................. 275 Section 1247--Amendments to Annual Report Under Arms Control and Disarmament Act.............................. 275 Section 1248--Limitation On Funds to Provide the Russian Federation with Access to Certain Missile Defense Technology............................................... 275 Section 1249--Reports On Actions to Reduce Support of Ballistic Missile Programs of China, Syria, Iran, and North Korea.............................................. 275 Section 1250--Congressional Notifications Relating to Status of Forces Agreements.............................. 276 Section 1251--Sense of Congress on the Conflict in Syria... 276 Section 1252--Revision of Statutory References to Former NATO Support Organizations and Related NATO Agreements... 276 Section 1253--Limitation on Funds to Implement Executive Agreements Relating to United States Missile Defense Capabilities............................................. 277 Section 1254--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Threat Reduction Engagement Activities and United States Contributions to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organization...................................... 277 Section 1255--Sense of Congress on Military-to-Military Cooperation Between the United States and Burma.......... 277 Section 1256--Sense of Congress on the Stationing of United States Forces in Europe.................................. 277 Section 1257--Sense of Congress on Military Capabilities of the People's Republic of China........................... 277 Section 1258--Rule of Construction......................... 278 TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 278 OVERVIEW....................................................... 278 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 279 Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Focus................... 279 Cooperative Biological Engagement Program.................... 279 U.S.-Russia Umbrella Agreement Negotiations.................. 280 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 280 Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs and Funds....................................... 280 Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 280 Section 1303--Extension for Use of Contributions to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program..................... 281 TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 281 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 281 Working Capital Fund Cash Balance Concerns................... 281 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 282 Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 282 Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................ 282 Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund................ 282 Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense.................................................. 282 Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 282 Section 1405--Defense Inspector General.................... 282 Section 1406--Defense Health Program....................... 282 Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 282 Section 1411--Use of National Defense Stockpile for the Conservation of a Strategic and Critical Materials Supply 282 Section 1412--Authority to Acquire Additional Materials for the National Defense Stockpile........................... 282 Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 283 Section 1421--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois...................... 283 Section 1422--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home................................... 283 Section 1423--Cemeterial Expenses.......................... 283 TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS....................................... 283 OVERVIEW....................................................... 283 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 283 National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund.......... 283 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Support for U.S. Special Operations Forces and Partner Nation Forces... 284 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 284 Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 284 Section 1501--Purpose...................................... 284 Section 1502--Procurement.................................. 284 Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 284 Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance.................... 284 Section 1505--Military Personnel........................... 284 Section 1506--Working Capital Funds........................ 284 Section 1507--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 286 Section 1508--Defense Inspector General.................... 286 Section 1509--Defense Health Program....................... 286 Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 286 Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations....... 286 Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority................... 286 Subtitle C--Limitations and Other Matters.................... 286 Section 1531--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund............. 286 Section 1532--Future Role of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization............................... 287 Section 1533--Limitation on Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Support for Operation Observant Compass... 287 Section 1534--Report on United States Force Levels and Costs of Military Operations in Afghanistan.............. 287 TITLE XVI--INDUSTRIAL BASE MATTERS............................... 287 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 287 Apportionment of Small Business Funds under Continuing Resolutions................................................ 287 Carbon Nanotube Devices...................................... 288 Communication between the Department of Defense and Industry. 288 Contracting for Textiles and Clothing........................ 289 Defense Security Service Access to Information in Conducting the National Industrial Security Program................... 289 Export Control Reform........................................ 291 Foreign Commercial Satellite Services Review................. 291 Germanium Wafer Defense Industrial Base...................... 292 Improving Information Technology Acquisition Outcomes........ 292 Monitoring and Enforcement of Mitigation Agreements Related to Foreign Investment in the United States................. 293 National Defense Stockpile Beryllium Upgrade................. 294 Next Generation Global Positioning System Receiver Equipment. 294 Regional Commercialization Activities........................ 294 Report on Diversification of Supply Activities Related to Rare Earth Elements........................................ 295 Report on Export of Night Vision Devices..................... 296 Report on the Integrity of the Supply Chain for Nuclear Command and Control and Critical Defense Capabilities...... 296 Report on the Implementation of Rare Earth Elements Strategy in the Joint Strike Fighter Program........................ 298 Risks to the Cruise Missile Industrial Base.................. 298 Small Business Size Standards................................ 299 Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base........................... 300 Space Surveillance Telescope................................. 301 Specialty Metals Clause Waiver Processes and Notification.... 301 Transfer of International Traffic in Arms Regulations Controlled Missile Defense Technology to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................... 303 Trusted Sources of Microelectronics.......................... 303 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 304 Section 1601--Periodic Audits of Contracting Compliance by Inspector General of Department of Defense............... 304 Section 1602--Expansion of the Procurement Technical Assistance Program to Advance Small Business Growth...... 304 Section 1603--Amendments Relating to Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program................. 305 Section 1604--Strategic Plan for Requirements for War Reserve Stocks of Meals Ready-To-Eat..................... 305 Section 1605--Foreign Commercial Satellite Services........ 305 Section 1606--Proof of Concept Commercialization Pilot Program.................................................. 306 DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 306 PURPOSE........................................................ 306 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.............. 306 Section 2001--Short Title.................................. 307 Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be Specified by Law.......................... 307 Section 2003--Effective Date............................... 307 TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 307 SUMMARY........................................................ 307 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 307 Explanation of Funding Adjustment............................ 307 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 307 Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 307 Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 308 Section 2103--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 308 Section 2104--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2004 Project................................. 308 Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Project......................... 308 Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project......................... 308 Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Projects....................................... 308 Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects....................................... 308 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 309 SUMMARY........................................................ 309 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 309 Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 309 Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 309 Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 309 Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 309 Section 2205--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project..................... 309 Section 2206--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project......................... 309 Section 2207--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Project......................... 310 Section 2208--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects....................................... 310 TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 310 SUMMARY........................................................ 310 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 310 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 310 Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 310 Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 310 Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 310 Section 2305--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project......................... 311 Section 2306--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project..................... 311 Section 2307--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project........................................ 311 TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 311 SUMMARY........................................................ 311 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 312 Explanation of Funding Adjustments........................... 312 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 314 Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 314 Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects................................ 314 Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects...... 314 Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies................................................. 314 Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 314 Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide.............. 314 TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM...................................................... 314 SUMMARY........................................................ 314 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 314 Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 314 Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 315 TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 315 SUMMARY........................................................ 315 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 315 Explanation of Funding Adjustments........................... 315 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 316 Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations........................................... 316 Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 316 Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 316 Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 316 Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 316 Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects................................ 316 Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and Reserve........................................ 316 Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 317 Section 2611--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project......................... 317 Section 2612--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects....................................... 317 TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 317 SUMMARY........................................................ 317 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 317 Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations.................. 317 Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account............... 317 Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 317 Section 2711--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round..................... 317 Section 2712--Elimination of Quarterly Certification Requirement Regarding Availabilty of Military Health Care in National Capital Region............................... 317 TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 318 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 318 Air Education and Training Command........................... 318 Air Force Institute of Technology Laboratory Recapitalization 318 Analysis of Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads. 318 Blast Protection for Forward Military Locations in Contingency Operations..................................... 319 Foreign Materiel Exploitation................................ 319 Dayton Peace Accord Exhibit.................................. 319 Department of Defense Joint Bases............................ 320 Distributed Generation and Energy Security................... 320 European Consolidation Initiative............................ 321 Industrial Control Systems Integration into the Department of Defense Networks........................................... 321 KC-46A Air National Guard Basing Strategy.................... 321 Leased Space Assessment...................................... 322 Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization.......................... 322 Military Heritage Sites...................................... 323 Plan for Replacement of MQ-1 Aircraft of the National Guard.. 323 Report on Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment.............. 323 Space Management............................................. 324 Study on Treating Defense Nuclear Facilities as Military Construction............................................... 325 Update to Master Plan for Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti........... 326 U.S. Air Force Space Command Infrastructure.................. 326 Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative................................................. 327 Vulnerability of Defense Infrastructure to Seismic Hazards... 327 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 328 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes.......................................... 328 Section 2801--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified Military Construction........................ 328 Section 2802--Repeal of Requirements for Local Comparability of Room Patterns and Floor Areas for Military Family Housing and Submission of Net Floor Area Information.............................................. 328 Section 2803--Repeal of Separate Authority to Enter into Limited Partnerships with Private Developers of Housing.. 328 Section 2804--Military Construction Standards to Reduce Vulnerability of Structures to Terrorist Attack.......... 328 Section 2805--Treatment of Payments Received for Providing Utilities and Services in Connection with Use of Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing......................................... 329 Section 2806--Repeal of Advance Notification Requirement for Use of Military Family Housing Investment Authority.. 329 Section 2807--Additional Element for Annual Report on Military Housing Privatization Projects.................. 329 Section 2808--Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects in Certain Areas Outside the United States...... 329 Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 329 Section 2811--Codification of Policies and Requirements Regarding Closure and Realignment of United States Military Installations in Foreign Countries.............. 329 Subtitle C--Energy Security.................................. 330 Section 2821--Continuation of Limitation on Use of Funds for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or Platinum Certification........................... 330 Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment........... 330 Section 2831--Change From Previous Calendar Year to Previous Fiscal Year for Period Covered by Annual Report of Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment..................................... 330 Section 2832--Repeal of Certain Restrictions on Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region............ 330 Subtitle E--Land Conveyances................................. 330 Section 2841--Real Property Acquisition, Naval Base Ventura County, California....................................... 330 Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Former Oxnard Air Force Base, Ventura County, California......................... 331 Section 2843--Land Conveyance, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania............................... 331 Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Camp Williams, Utah......... 331 Section 2845--Conveyance, Air National Guard Radar Site, Francis Peak, Wasatch Mountains, Utah.................... 331 Section 2846--Land Conveyance, Former Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia................................................. 331 Section 2847--Land Conveyance, Mifflin County United States Army Reserve Center, Lewistown, Pennsylvania............. 331 Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 331 Section 2861--Repeal of Annual Economic Adjustment Committee Reporting Requirement.......................... 331 Section 2862--Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.............................. 332 Section 2863--Redesignation of the Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences as the Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing............................................... 332 Section 2864--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, Ohio........................... 332 Section 2865--Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial in Riverside, California................................. 332 TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 332 SUMMARY........................................................ 332 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 332 Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Project...................................... 332 TITLE XXX--MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS TO SUPPORT READINESS AND SECURITY....................................... 333 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 333 Subtitle A--Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana........... 333 Section 3001--Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Lands for Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana............... 333 Section 3002--Management of Withdrawn and Reserved Lands... 333 Section 3003--Special Rules Governing Minerals Management.. 333 Section 3004--Grazing...................................... 333 Section 3005--Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation....... 333 Section 3006--Payments in Lieu of Taxes.................... 333 Section 3007--Hunting, Fishing and Trapping................ 333 Section 3008--Water Rights................................. 334 Section 3009--Brush and Range Fire Prevention and Suppression.............................................. 334 Section 3010--On-Going Decontamination..................... 334 Section 3011--Application for Renewal of a Withdrawal and Reservation.............................................. 334 Section 3012--Limitation on Subsequent Availability of Lands for Appropriation.................................. 334 Section 3013--Relinquishment............................... 334 Subtitle B--White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico............ 334 Section 3021--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.................... 334 Section 3022--Water Rights................................. 334 Section 3023--Withdrawal................................... 334 Subtitle C--Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California. 335 Section 3031--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California......... 335 Section 3032--Water Rights................................. 335 Section 3033--Withdrawal................................... 335 Subtitle D--Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California............................................... 335 Section 3041--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California...... 335 Section 3042--Management and Use of Transferred Land....... 335 Section 3043--Realignment of Range Boundary and Related Transfer of Title........................................ 335 Section 3044--Effect of Termination of Military Use........ 335 Section 3045--Temporary Extension of Existing Withdrawal Period................................................... 336 Section 3046--Water Rights................................. 336 Subtitle E--Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California........................................ 336 Section 3051--Designation of Johnson Valley National Off- Highway Vehicle Recreation Area.......................... 336 Section 3052--Limited Biannual Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms Use of Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area............. 336 Section 3053--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Southern Study Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California...................... 336 Section 3054--Water Rights................................. 336 Subtitle F--Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada................. 337 Section 3061--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada......................... 337 Section 3062--Water Rights................................. 337 Section 3063--Withdrawal................................... 337 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 337 TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 337 OVERVIEW....................................................... 337 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 337 National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 337 Overview................................................... 337 Weapons Activities......................................... 337 Advanced manufacturing within the nuclear security enterprise............................................. 337 Budget tables for NNSA Production Office................. 338 Cyber Security........................................... 339 Clarification of Congressional Intent Regarding National Security Laboratories.................................. 339 Deferred Maintenance in the Nuclear Security Enterprise.. 339 Directed Stockpile Work.................................. 340 Exascale Computing....................................... 341 Ignition and Budget Prioritization....................... 341 Livermore Valley Open Campus............................. 341 Trilateral Cooperation................................... 342 Risks within long-term schedule for life extension programs............................................... 342 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 343 Follow-on to Global Threat Reduction Initiative.......... 343 Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Analysis........... 343 Nonproliferation and arms control verification technology research and development............................... 344 Naval Reactors............................................. 344 Fissile material stockpiles.............................. 344 Naval Reactors........................................... 344 Office of the Administrator................................ 345 Office of Infrastructure and Operations.................. 345 Plan and roadmap to address security problems............ 345 Reprogramming Procedure and Funding Control Levels....... 346 Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 347 Overview................................................... 347 Defense Environmental Cleanup.............................. 347 Environmental Management Technology Development Program.. 347 Transuranic Wastes at Hanford Tank Farms................. 347 Other Defense Activities................................... 348 Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security Program........... 348 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 349 Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations......... 349 Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 349 Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................ 349 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 349 Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance................ 349 Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations.............................................. 349 Section 3111--Clarification of Principles of National Nuclear Security Administration.......................... 349 Section 3112--Termination of Department of Energy Employees to Protect National Security............................. 349 Section 3113--Modification of Independent Cost Estimates on Life Extension Programs and New Nuclear Facilities....... 350 Section 3114--Plan for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposition of Tank Farm Waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation.............................................. 351 Section 3115--Enhanced Procurement Authority to Manage Supply Chain Risk........................................ 352 Section 3116--Limitation on Availability of Funds for National Nuclear Security Administration................. 352 Section 3117--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the Administrator.............................. 353 Section 3118--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Global Threat Reduction Initiative....................... 354 Section 3119--Establishment of Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Testing, and Response.............. 354 Section 3120--Cost-Benefit Analyses for Competition of Management and Operating Contracts....................... 355 Section 3121--W88-1 Warhead and W78-1 Warhead Life Extension Options........................................ 355 Section 3122--Extension of Principles of Pilot Program to Additional Facilities of the Nuclear Security Enterprise. 356 Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 357 Section 3131--Annual Report and Certification on Status of the Security of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.......... 357 Section 3132--Modifications to Annual Reports Regarding the Condition of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile............... 358 Section 3133--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements..... 358 Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 359 Section 3141--Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise............ 359 Section 3142--Study of Potential Reuse of Nuclear Weapon Secondaries.............................................. 359 Section 3143--Clarification of Role of Secretary of Energy. 360 Section 3144--Technical Amendment to Atomic Energy Act of 1954..................................................... 360 TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 360 OVERVIEW....................................................... 360 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 360 Section 3201--Authorization................................ 360 Section 3202--Improvements to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................................. 360 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 361 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 361 Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 361 TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 361 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 361 Title XI Ship Loan Guarantee................................. 361 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 361 Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2014..................................................... 361 Section 3502--5-Year Reauthorization of Vessel War Risk Insurance Program........................................ 362 Section 3503--Sense of Congress............................ 362 DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 362 Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables... 362 TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 369 Section 4101--Procurement.................................. 369 Section 4102--Procurement for Overseas Contingency Operations............................................... 410 TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 420 Section 4201--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 420 Section 4202--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for Overseas Contingency Operations...................... 451 TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 453 Section 4301--Operation and Maintenance.................... 453 Section 4302--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas Contingency Operations................................... 471 TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 482 Section 4401--Military Personnel........................... 482 Section 4402--Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency Operations............................................... 483 TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 484 Section 4501--Other Authorizations......................... 484 Section 4502--Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency Operations............................................... 487 TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 489 Section 4601--Military Construction........................ 489 TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 507 Section 4701--Department of Energy National Security Programs................................................. 507 Department of Defense Authorization Request...................... 518 Communications from Other Committees............................. 520 Fiscal Data...................................................... 533 Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 534 Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act............... 534 Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 535 Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 535 Oversight Findings............................................... 535 General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 535 Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 537 Federal Advisory Committee Statement............................. 537 Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 537 Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 537 Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 537 Committee Votes.................................................. 537 Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 556 Additional Views................................................. 557 Dissenting Views................................................. 563 113th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113-102 ====================================================================== NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 _______ June 7, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _______ Mr. McKeon, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 1960] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows: The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported bill. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION The bill would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for procurement and for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2014: (a) the personnel strength for each Active Duty component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed Forces; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for the Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for the Maritime Administration. RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, is a key mechanism through which the Congress of the United States fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, which grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of Defense (DOD) generally, and over the military application of nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The committee bill includes the large majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the current year, as informed by the experience gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence. The bill reflects the House Armed Services Committee's steadfast support of the courageous, professional, and dedicated men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the committee's appreciation for the sacrifices they make to accomplish their required missions. Events of the last year-- ranging from on-going operations in Afghanistan, robust counter-terrorism efforts around the globe, to time-sensitive disaster and humanitarian responses--serve to highlight the United States military's flexibility and responsiveness in defending our nation's interests and addressing security challenges. The committee understands that the capabilities of our Armed Forces are underpinned by the dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as the defense industrial base. Each of these elements is required to enable the U.S. military to be the guarantor of peace and economic security that it has been for generations. The committee is deeply committed to providing full authorization for the funding required to restore the readiness of our military; enhance the quality of life of military service members and their families; sustain and improve the Armed Forces; and properly safeguard the national security of the United States. In addition to providing authorization of appropriations, the committee bill ensures our troops deployed in Afghanistan and around the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training, and time needed to successfully complete their missions and return home; mandates greater transparency and accountability for sensitive military operations to Congress; provides our warfighters and their families with the resources and support they need, deserve, and have earned; protects members of the Armed Forces from the unacceptable risk of sexual assault; invests in the capabilities and force structure needed to protect the United States from current and future threats; and incentivizes greater competition for defense dollars and greater fiscal responsibility within the Department of Defense. Equipment, Resources, Authorities, Training, and Time To Accomplish Missions The committee considers it critical that the capabilities and capacity of the Armed Forces continue to improve so these forces can accomplish the full range of diverse missions within a complex operating environment, minimize risks associated with such challenges and effectively engage in hostilities when necessary. Thus, a top priority remains ensuring that our military personnel continue to receive the best equipment, weapon systems and training. As such, H.R. 1960 would provide for both near- and long-term military personnel and force structure requirements. The military continues to put pressure on Al Qaeda and its associated forces. The bill makes clear that Congress has a constitutional oversight role critical at each stage of sensitive military operations conducted to combat these forces. The committee includes a provision that would require an assessment of the affiliates and adherents of Al Qaeda and the evolving threat they pose to U.S. national security. The bill also would codify the requirement for notification and briefings following targeted lethal or capture operations by the Armed Forces overseas. The legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an explanation of the legal and policy considerations and approval processes used in determining whether an individual or group of individuals could be the target of a lethal or capture operation conducted by the Armed Forces of the United States outside the United States. The committee bill also includes several additional provisions to extend detention policies and procedures. While the committee continues its inquiry into the tragic events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the bill would ensure that the Department of Defense has begun to apply the lessons already learned. The committee bill also addresses concerns regarding the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic and would ensure that Congress is kept informed of the resources required and risks associated with a variety of courses of action or inaction in Syria. Likewise, the committee expects that if the President determines that U.S. military involvement is required, the President will submit a supplemental funding request to Congress for consideration. Understanding that unilateral U.S. response to the Syrian crisis is not in America's best interest, the bill would authorize the Armed Forces to train and equip regional partners for weapons of mass destruction response. Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes the continued threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the steps taken by the committee to address gaps in U.S. intelligence, expand information about Iran's global threat network, foster partnerships with the Gulf Cooperation Council nations, and express concerns about the strategic consequences of having only one carrier in the region of the Arabian Gulf. Likewise, the committee notes the rogue actions of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which are unacceptable and contrary to international peace and stability and extends reporting on North Korea's military capabilities. The committee also reflects concerns regarding the modernization efforts of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), as reflected in testimony before the committee and the annual report on the Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China. The ballistic missile threat continues to increase both qualitatively and quantitatively. Defending against ballistic or theater missile attack is an important priority for the committee. The committee bill would restrict the removal of missile defense hardware from East Asia, while requiring analysis on missile defense capabilities in Guam, invest in proven and vital systems like Iron Dome, and provide significant resources for other Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense programs, like Arrow 2, Arrow 3 and the David's Sling Weapon System. The legislation would provide authorization and funding for the deployment of an East Coast missile defense site, while the Missile Defense Agency undertakes siting and environmental studies. Additionally, robust intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities are vital to current combat operations in Afghanistan, as well as emerging threats in North Africa and elsewhere. To ensure that use and availability of ISR resources are maximized, the bill would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan related to the drawdown of defense intelligence assets in Afghanistan and it would prevent the premature retirement of Global Hawk block 30 unmanned aircraft. Finally, recent reports only enhance the committee's concerns about the threat posed by cyber attacks. The bill would require the Department of Defense to conduct a mission analysis for cyber operations and examine the proper balance of cyber capabilities across the national security organization, as well as a report on coordination of cyber and electronic warfare activities. The committee would also require the Department to provide congressional notification when investigations are initiated or completed regarding network cyber intrusions that result in the compromise of critical information. Additionally, the legislation would require the Defense Science Board to conduct an independent assessment of the organization, missions and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command, and require the Secretary of Defense to create standards for cyber operations training. The bill also would provide important authorities to the Department of Energy to ensure the integrity of its information technology supply chain--similar to authority available to the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. Combatting Sexual Assault in the Military The American public holds the U.S. Armed Forces to the highest standards and in great esteem. Consequently, the scourge of sexual assault has no place within these ranks. The committee has made sexual assault prevention and prosecution a conerstone of this bill. The bill would reform the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to strip commanders of their authority to dismiss a finding by a court martial or from reducing guilty findings to lesser offenses. The committee bill would also establish minimum sentencing guidelines for sexual assault-related offenses. Currently, such guidelines only exist in the military for the crimes of murder and espionage. The proposed changes to the UCMJ would also enable the victim of a crime to provide the convening authority materials for the convening authority's post-trial consideration; set guidelines for defense council interviews of the victim; and articulate the rights of a crime victim. Recognizing that victim support is as vital as prosecution, the legislation would allow victims of sexual assault to apply for a permanent change of station or unit transfer, while authorizing the Secretary of Defense to inform commanders of their authority to remove or temporarily reassign service members who are the alleged perpetrators of sexual assault. The committee bill would require the provision of victims' counsels, qualified and specially trained lawyers in each of the services, to be made available to provide legal assistance to the victims of sex-related offenses. Moreover, the bill seeks to improve the climate for reporting of a sex-related offense by adding rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct to the protected communications of service members with a member of Congress or an Inspector General. The committee recommends reforms to improve unit climate assessments, improve the performance evaluation process, increase commander accountability, and help establish a military culture intolerant of sexual assaults through improved security, as well as health and welfare inspections. Finally, to ensure that the military is better positioned to deal with the crisis of sexual assault within its ranks, the committee bill would require both the Secretary of Defense and the independent panel established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to assess the current role and authorities of commanders in the administration of military justice and the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of offenses under the UCMJ; direct the Government Accountability Office to review implementation of the Air Force corrective actions following the sexual misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base; and mandate the processing for administrative separation of any service member guilty of an inappropriate and prohibited relationship, communication, conduct, or contact, including when such an action is consensual, with a prospective member of the Armed Forces or a member undergoing entry-level processing or training. Preserving Key Capabilities in a Time of Fiscal Austerity In April 2011, the President announced his intention to seek over $400.0 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next decade. Subsequently, the Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 111-25) (BCA) in August 2011. The BCA significantly reduced discretionary spending across the Federal Government and for the military in particular. The Department of Defense noted that cuts relating to the BCA amounted to $489.0 billion. In addition, sequestration went into effect across the Federal Government on March 1, 2013. Should sequestration remain in effect, funding for national defense will be cut by an additional $42.5 billion during fiscal year 2013 and approximately half a trillion dollars through 2021. The committee is particularly concerned about readiness levels and threats to our national security once the full weight of sequestration is realized. History tells us that when readiness is low and our units ill-equipped and unprepared to fight, our troops pay the price with their lives. Areas of additional concern include the size and force structure of our armed forces and funding levels as we prepare to draw down in Afghanistan. The committee is concerned about the Navy's overall fleet size and the continuous sustained demand for naval forces, especially in light of the Administration's strategic shift to operations in the Asia-Pacific. Therefore, the restriction precluding the Navy from retiring seven Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers and two amphibious ships well before the end of their expected service life continues for fiscal year 2014. The committee would provide additional funds to the Navy to properly modernize and maintain these critical naval assets. The committee notes that it is less costly to maintain existing assets than to procure new ones and this funding ensures the correct naval capabilities and fleet mix for the length of time originally authorized by Congress. The committee also would authorize multiyear procurements for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and the C-130J Super Hercules to ensure the Department is able to save significant resources over the term of the contract. The committee also would fund needed ship construction to obviate the negative consequences of sequestration on the various ship construction programs. The committee would provide sufficient funds to support the acquisition of the 10th DDG-51 class destroyer of a multiyear procurement; additional funds to support the continued acquisition of two Virginia Class attack submarines; and additional funds associated with the completion of the DDG-1000 class destroyer, the Moored Training Ship, and the Joint High Speed Vessel. In noting concerns about potential strike fighter shortfalls and combat aviation capability, the committee would preserve the Air Force and Navy strike fighter industrial base by supporting the continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter program, provide for additional advance procurement for the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, and address a critical Air Force unfunded requirement for strike fighter engines. The committee notes the importance of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft. The bill would retain the Air Force's Global Hawk Block 30 ISR aircraft, rather than shifting these assets to storage, as they are critical combat enablers for the deployed warfighter. The legislation would also provide additional funding for the Air Force Reaper UAS, a high-demand, low-density asset critical to Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee also recommends additional funding to allow for the continued sustainment of America's heavy armored vehicle production base by maintaining at least minimum sustained production for Abrams tank upgrades and heavy improved recovery vehicles. The committee also would preserve the continued operational capability of the National Guard and Reserve Components by providing additional funding to address National Guard and Reserve Component unfunded modernization requirements. These changes preserve capability in the Active Component, as well as the Guard and Reserve, but not at the expense of the readiness of the Active Component. The committee would fund the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) at $85.8 billion, consistent with the House- passed fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 25, thereby taking a partial step to replenish underfunded readiness accounts within the OCO. In so doing, the committee was able to replenish shortfalls resulting from unexpected costs in fiscal year 2013 to important accounts supporting reset and reconstitution of the force after more than a decade of combat and enabling support for wartime operations. Specifically, the committee took steps to restore critical readiness shortfalls by providing additional resources for training activities, flight hours, facilities sustainment, critical spares, combat support forces equipment and sustainment, and the stabilization of fuel rates. The committee also provided funding for unfunded priority items like a new Marine crisis response force for Africa and growth in the Marine Security Guard program responsible for security at our diplomatic posts. The bill would restore $400.0 million in critical equipment reset funding in the OCO that would refurbish war-torn equipment, specifically for the Army. In making these changes, the committee heeded the testimony of the service chiefs, who stressed the importance of ensuring the United States does not repeat the mistakes of the past by hollowing force structure in response to budget cuts. Therefore, for every change to force structure recommended by this bill includes funding for military personnel and operation and maintenance costs associated with such force structure. Moreover, each of these changes was funded within the top line funding allocation provided by the House-passed fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 25, which reduced overall discretionary spending below the fiscal year 2014 cap mandated by the Budget Control Act (Public Law 111-25). Resources for Warfighters and Families Recognizing the need to maintain a high quality all- volunteer combat-ready force, the committee bill supports current law, which mandates an automatic 1.8% annual increase in troop pay. The committee bill would ensure that end strength requests are within the limitations for reductions set by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239), reflecting concerns that budgetary pressures will force each service to reduce its end strength too quickly and to divest vital battlefield experience and know how. Committee members believe access to quality healthcare during retirement is a benefit earned through prior service to our nation. Mindful of Congress' commitment to service members and their families, the legislation would reject proposals to increase some TRICARE fees or establish new TRICARE fees. The committee has already put TRICARE on a sustainable path through reforms enacted in several recent defense authorization acts. Those reforms connect TRICARE fee increases to retiree cost of living increases. The record of the Department of Defense in incorrectly calculating TRICARE costs and its repeated requests to transfer billions of unused dollars out of the program to cover other underfunded defense priorities raises questions about repeated claims by the Department that the Defense Health Program is unsustainable. The committee bill also would provide beneficiaries an opportunity to remain in TRICARE Prime after the Department of Defense reduces the availability of Prime to retired beneficiaries. After a decade of honorable service in hostile environments, women have demonstrated a wide range of capabilities in combat operations. The committee bill would establish the definition of a gender-neutral occupational standards that would be used by each military service to develop the standards required for all military career designators. Other provisions in the committee bill are designed to protect warfighters and their families from external threats, while ensuring that units and families are supported and prepared for deployments. The committee bill would require a minimum 120-day notification before deployment or the cancellation of a deployment for the operational reserves. It also would authorize the commander of U.S. Special Forces Command to provide additional family support services to U.S. Special Operations Forces and their families. The committee bill would take action on body armor, one of the most basic elements of protection provided to our troops. The bill would facilitate the development of ever more functional, lighter, and more protective body armor by requiring each service to create a separate procurement budget line for personal protective equipment, thus making body armor a more traditional weapon system acquisition program that can build on successive generations of innovation and investment, rather than the ad hoc procedure now in place. The bill also would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study and assessment on ways to improve personal protective equipment for female service members. Fiscal Responsibility, Transparency, and Accountability The committee scrutinized the Department of Defense's budget and identified inefficiencies whose savings can be invested in higher national security priorities. The committee bill would reflect the fact that as a nation, we must make tough choices in order to provide for America's common defense by examining every aspect of the defense enterprise to find ways that we can accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more effectively. The findings of the committee's Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform and the Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry continue to guide the committee's consideration of legislation that would be included in this bill. The committee bill would include a number of provisions to strengthen fiscal responsibility, including direction to the Department of Defense to strengthen Item Unique Identification and other automated information and data capture initiatives which would lower total life cycle cost of items acquired and managed and save taxpayer money through improved accountability. The bill would also include the sense of Congress regarding the Department of Defense's ongoing Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness process and support the goal of audit readiness across the Department by 2017, which have only increased in importance as sequestration is implemented. To that end, the bill would require that a full and complete audit take place for fiscal year 2018. Furthermore, recognizing that any future contingency operation will be heavily reliant on contractors and incorporating the lessons learned from U.S. operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee bill would encourage the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID to establish a memorandum of agreement that would serve as a framework for designating a lead Inspector General for overseas contingency operations not later than 30 days after the commencement of certain military operations. Controlling Costs and Making Wise Choices The committee recognizes that in an era of constrained resources, controlling costs should be a key priority. At the same time, the committee sought to avoid false short term savings at the expense of vital long-term strategic capabilities. The committee bill would require the Department of Defense to take several steps toward reducing wasteful bureaucracy. For example, the Secretary of Defense would be required to develop a plan for the future role of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization and to determine if the Air-Sea Battle Office is duplicative of efforts more efficiently carried out by the Joint Staff. The bill would also reduce general and flag officer billets by 24. The bill would require greater accountability for cost overruns associated with troubled acquisition programs. The committee expresses concern regarding the design of the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer Flight III and limits funding for the next stage of the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle until the Secretary of the Army submits a status report to Congress. Likewise, the committee would require the Secretary of the Army to develop a strategy to improve the fuel efficiency of the M1 Abrams Tank. The bill would also scrutinize plans for the sustainment of the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Significant emphasis is placed on identifying additional efficiencies. The committee bill would task the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with carrying out several studies with an intent to reduce bureaucracy, including an examination of the headquarters functions of U.S. Central Command, all of the functional combatant commands, the office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and service secretaries. The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to report back on actions taken to address the recommendations of the GAO with regard to similar reviews undertaken at the remaining geographic combatant commands last year. Moreover, the committee notes that the Department has failed to adequately conduct the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), nor has the Department submitted a mission based budget as required. Therefore, the committee would task GAO to examine contributing factors to this lack of compliance. In addition, the committee would seek to increase cost savings through enhanced competition and alternative contracting mechanisms. Among other initiatives, the committee bill would direct a federally funded research and development center to conduct a study to identify and assess alternative and effective means for stimulating competition and innovation in the personal protection equipment industrial base, to include body armor. Other enhancements to competition would include the requirement to ensure a fair evaluation of competing contractors in awarding a contract to a certified evolved expendable launch vehicle provider. The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to enter into a 5-year pilot program for the multiyear procurement of tactical wheeled vehicles and authorize multiyear contracts for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and the C-130J Super Hercules. The committee would also direct a strategy to reduce the cost of commercial satellite services through multiyear awards. HEARINGS Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 results from hearings that began on March 5, 2013, and that were completed on May 9, 2013. The full committee conducted 10 sessions. In addition, a total of 13 sessions were conducted by 6 different subcommittees. COMMITTEE POSITION On June 5, 2013, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum being present, approved H.R. 1960, as amended, by a vote of 59- 2. EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1960. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts will provide budget authority. However, the committee strives to adhere to the recommendations as issued by the Committee on the Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee. The bill addresses the following categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test, and evaluation; operation and maintenance; military personnel; working capital funds; and military construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve and the Maritime Administration. Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization of specific dollar amounts for military personnel. SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL The President requested discretionary budget authority of $625.2 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the committee for fiscal year 2014. Of this amount, $526.6 billion was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense programs, $80.7 billion was requested for the Overseas Contingency Operations requirements covering the entire fiscal year, and $17.9 billion was requested for Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of $630.2 billion in fiscal year 2014, including $85.8 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. The base committee authorization of $544.4 billion is a $0.4 billion decrease below the levels provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this report summarizes the committee's recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2014 and compares these amounts to the President's request. BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION The President's total request for the national defense budget function (050) in fiscal year 2014 is $641.0 billion, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050 request includes discretionary funding for national defense programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary funding for programs that do not require additional authorization in fiscal year 2014, and mandatory programs. The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this report details changes to all aspects of the national defense budget function. DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE I--PROCUREMENT OVERVIEW The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $98.2 billion for procurement. This represents a $900.0 million decrease over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends authorization of $99.6 billion, an increase of $1.4 billion from the fiscal year 2014 request. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 procurement program are identified in division D of this Act. Aircraft Procurement, Army Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $5.0 billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $5.2 billion, an increase of $135.1 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Apache helicopter transmission The budget request contained $759.4 million for procurement of the Apache helicopter program. The committee continues to support the AH-64E Apache helicopter program and believes that it provides a critical capability to the Army. The committee understands that the program has had production issues with the current transmission. The Apache transmission is a ``single point-of- failure'' component in that only one vendor is currently certified to make this particular transmission. The committee notes that the Army had to make difficult decisions to mitigate the impact to the industrial base and fielding schedule. The committee encourages the Army to continue its mitigation efforts with the prime contractor in regards to the transmission subcontractor meeting required production schedules. The committee also encourages the Army to work with the prime contractor and determine if the qualification of a second source is warranted considering the critical nature of the transmission. The committee recommends $759.4 million, the full amount of the request, for the Apache helicopter program. Lightweight combat medical evacuation systems The committee is concerned about weight-related performance issues impacting rotorcraft systems used for medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) missions. The committee understands that current MEDEVAC rotorcraft are required to operate over long distances in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as well as in other remote areas of operations. The committee is aware of recent efforts by the U.S. Army Aviation Research Laboratory under the Medical Research and Materiel Command and the Army Aviation Engineering Directorate at Redstone Arsenal to test ways to reduce the weight of MEDEVAC rotorcraft, including lightweight rack systems for the transport and treatment of injured military personnel. The committee notes that a lightweight rack system could provide flight medical personnel additional capabilities to accomplish critical evacuation missions by improving space, range, and altitude performance for the rotorcraft. The committee encourages the Army to continue expedited testing of lightweight tactical, rapidly installable medical evacuation racks as one of many possible options to better manage rotorcraft weight and improve overall performance. UH-72 Light Utility Helicopter The budget request included $96.2 million for procurement of 10 UH-72 Light Utility Helicopters (LUH). According to the Army, this is the final year of UH-72 purchases, truncating the total program buy at 315 aircraft, instead of 346 as originally planned. The committee notes that even though this ends production short of the original plan, the final buy fully meets the agreed upon UH-72 requirements of the Army National Guard. The committee recognizes that funding constraints and assessments in investment priorities contributed to the Army's decision to end UH-72 LUH production early, but also recognizes the platform has performed very well in valuable mission scenarios, to include homeland security, patrol along the Southwest boarder, and state and regional emergency response. These scenarios are important to operations in the permissive U.S. environment. However, the committee is concerned that the Army's decision may have an impact on the UH-72 LUH industrial base that increase risks over time for the support of its fielded fleet of 315 aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends $231.3 million, an increase of $135.1 million, for procurement of UH-72 LUH. The committee acknowledges that the additional procurement funds complete the total requirement for the LUH program. The committee understands that while no further requirements for additional platforms have been formally identified by the National Guard Bureau; should additional requirements be identified, the committee expects the National Guard to use National Guard and Reserve Equipment account funds. In addition, the committee encourages the Army to assess the feasibility of transferring additional UH-72 LUH rotorcraft from the Active Component to the National Guard if additional requirements are validated. Missile Procurement, Army Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $1.3 billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.3 billion, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this Act. Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $1.6 billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.8 billion, an increase of $191.0 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Armor Brigade Combat Team force structure and industrial base The committee notes that as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the Army is in the process of reducing its Active Duty end strength to 490,000. In addition, the Army has also announced plans to eliminate at least eight Active Component Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), reducing the total number from 45 to 37. The active Army has 17 Armor BCTs (ABCT), 20 Infantry BCTs, and 8 Stryker BCTs. The Army has stated that at least two of the eight BCTs eliminated will be ABCTs. The committee notes that the ABCT, which is comprised of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, is the only full- spectrum force in the Army's force structure. With regard to the future utility of armored forces, the committee notes a Rand Corporation report from 2010 that concluded, ``Heavy forces-based on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles-are key elements of any force that will fight hybrid enemies that have a modicum of training, organization, and advanced weapons. Light and medium forces can complement heavy forces, particularly in urban and other complex terrain; they do not provide the survivability, lethality, or mobility inherent in heavy forces. Quite simply, heavy forces reduce operational risks and minimize friendly casualties.'' The committee is concerned that the Army may eliminate too many ABCTs based on resource constraints rather than meeting the needs of combatant commanders. The committee understands the Army has completed a force structure and BCT mix analysis. Although the committee has been informed that the Army will add a third maneuver battalion back into the Active Component Armor and Infantry BCTs which will also impact the total amount of BCTs, the committee has not been briefed on final force structure and BCT mix decisions. The committee is supportive of all BCTs having a third maneuver battalion and notes that the committee opposed the Army's original decision of two maneuver battalions per BCT in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. The committee also notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Secretary of the Army, or his designee, and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, or his designee, to brief and submit a report to the congressional defense committees on how the Army's recent force structure and BCT mix analysis meet the needs of the combatant commanders. This information has not been provided to the congressional defense committees. In addition to the mix of BCTs, the committee is also concerned about the Army's position that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) alone is sufficient to protect the armor industrial base until follow-on programs begin around the fiscal year 2019 time-frame. The committee believes that the associated impact this position has on the industrial base at both the prime contractor and vendor level poses an unacceptable level of risk. The ABCT industrial base is not dependent upon one platform. The committee continues to believe that insufficient information is available to Congress to make an informed decision regarding current and potential future risks to the armor industrial base at the prime and vendor levels. The committee understands that the Army believes that it will soon have the necessary analytical information required to make informed decisions about the industrial base. The committee needs to understand the ramifications to the future ABCT industrial base capabilities regarding the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin howitzer, Hercules recovery vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and the Ground Combat Vehicle. The committee needs to understand the Army's projected requirements in the fiscal year 2019 time-frame to maintain a public and private workforce to sustain the current level of ABCTs, and what capabilities the Army will need in the future to produce new or improved platforms. The committee believes that FMS may help to mitigate some of the risk to the industrial base, but believes FMS alone will not be enough to ensure that the ABCT industrial base is maintained at viable levels until follow-on production efforts begin in the fiscal year 2019 time-frame. In the absence of a force mix BCT analysis, and a detailed quantitative analysis of the impacts to the ABCT industrial base, the committee recommends adjustments to the Army's budget request elsewhere in this report. Abrams tank upgrades The budget request contained no funding for the Abrams tank upgrade program. The committee believes that the Army must maintain the ability for its Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT) to over match any possible threat, and is concerned that the Army still does not have a realistic plan for maintaining the M1 Abrams tank industrial base for the future. The Army has testified, in support of the fiscal year 2014 budget request, that they do not have any plans to close down the industrial facilities used to upgrade M1 Abrams tanks. The Army has also testified that they plan on proceeding with the next M1 Abrams tank upgrade program in 2019, which the committee assumes will require an active and healthy industrial base. In addition, the Army has testified that one of their top modernization programs, the Ground Combat Vehicle program, is also scheduled to enter production in the 2019 time frame and that the Army will need a viable industrial base to produce it as well. While the committee understands that the Army assumes that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) alone are enough to keep the Abrams tank line ``warm'' until the 2019 time frame, based on current world events, the committee believes that reliance upon FMS alone poses an unacceptable level of risk to our heavy vehicle industrial base, and thus to our national security. As a result, the committee believes that the best course of action would be a combination of continued tank upgrades for the Army and ongoing FMS, the combination of which should maintain production lines and suppliers until the next Abrams tank upgrade program begins. To further mitigate risk to the industrial base, the committee encourages the Army to begin the next series of Abrams tank upgrades in the 2017 or 2018 time frame, rather than delaying to 2019. With regard to the military need for more M1A2 tank upgrades, the committee notes that six National Guard ABCTs are currently equipped with a less capable version of the Abrams tank. In addition, the committee believes that in the future the National Guard's share of ABCTs in the Army will increase due to possible Active Duty reductions, making the Army more reliant on its National Guard brigades in case of a major conflict. Therefore, the committee believes that as long as the National Guard has a less capable version of the Abrams tank, there will be a requirement for additional modernized M1A2 Abrams tanks. The committee recommends $168.0 million in Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for the Abrams tank upgrade program. Bradley fighting vehicle and transmission upgrades The budget request contained $158.0 million for Bradley fighting vehicle modifications. The committee encourages the Army to use fiscal year 2013 authorized and appropriated funds to convert Bradley M2 Calvary vehicles into Bradley M3 infantry fighting vehicles. The committee understands that if the Bradley fighting vehicle production line is shut down, then other currently funded combat vehicle programs, such as the Paladin integrated management and the M88A2 recovery vehicle, will experience cost increases. The committee also notes that regardless of whether the Ground Combat Vehicle is developed and fielded on schedule, the Army must continue upgrades to the remaining fleet of Bradley fighting vehicles through the Bradley Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) program. If the Army chooses to upgrade the vehicle transmission as part of the ECP program, than the committee encourages the Army to conduct a competitive award process for a transmission provided as government furnished equipment, or to require the prime contractor to conduct a competition to select the transmission used in the upgrade. The committee believes that such a competition will ensure that the Army gets the best possible transmission available at the lowest possible cost. The committee recommends $158.0 million, the full amount requested, for Bradley fighting vehicle modifications. Improved recovery vehicle The budget request contained $111.0 million for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program. The committee is aware that in order to provide greater protection for soldiers, the Army's current and future fleet of combat vehicles has grown significantly in weight. As a result, the M88A1 recovery vehicles are approaching their maximum capability with the current fleet, and its capability will be greatly exceeded by the future fleet. The committee supports the Army's decision to include funds in the budget request for procurement of additional M88A2 vehicles, but believes additional funds are necessary to maintain production. The committee believes this will provide the Army with ample time to finalize its force structure and Brigade Combat Team adjustments and to determine a more accurate requirement for the procurement of additional M88A2s. The committee recommends $186.0 million, an increase of $75.0 million, for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program. Carbine program The budget request contained $70.8 million for the carbine program. Of this amount, $18.9 million was requested for 12,000 M4A1 carbines and $48.6 million was requested for 29,897 new, individual carbine weapons. The budget request also contained $10.3 million for M4 carbine modifications. As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee continues to support the Army's dual- path acquisition strategy for modernizing its inventory of carbine weapons, which would allow the Army to upgrade its current M4 carbines as well as procure a new carbine after the current individual carbine competition is complete. Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) required the Secretary of the Army to submit to the congressional defense committees a business case assessment before making a procurement decision regarding the individual carbine program. The committee has yet to receive this business case assessment. Therefore, the committee is concerned that the amount of procurement funding requested for new carbines is too high given the individual carbine program's current down-select and evaluation schedule as well as the requirement to provide a business case assessment. The committee recommends $48.8 million, a decrease of $22.0 million for new carbine weapons, for the carbine program. The committee also recommends $10.3 million, the full amount of the request, for M4 carbine modifications. M9 product improvement strategy The budget request contained $0.3 million for the M9 pistol program. The committee notes that the M9 pistol has been a reliable pistol with consistent and reasonable life-cycle costs. The committee understands that the development of a requirement to replace the M9 pistol has been slowed by budget constraints and system capability debates over the need for a replacement. The committee is aware that the Marine Corps has upgraded the M9 pistol with a series of product improvements that has extended the life-cycle of the program and improved the weapon's capabilities. The committee believes that the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force should consider pursuing a similar product improvement program for their respective service's M9 pistol inventory based on the Marine Corps' experience and lessons learned. The committee expects that any product improvement program be managed and executed through a full and open competitive process. The committee recommends $0.3 million, the full amount of the request, for the M9 pistol program. Procurement of Ammunition, Army Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $1.5 billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.4 billion, a decrease of $74.5 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Acquisition strategy for 40mm ammunition The budget request contained $55.8 million in procurement of ammunition, Army for 40mm cartridges. The committee is concerned that the budget request for 40mm ammunition may disrupt 40mm cartridge production due to the potential changes in allocation between variants of 40mm cartridges. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report by February 15, 2014 to the congressional defense committees that provides a five year funding estimate and annual production profile for each 40mm cartridge variant, detailed information on proposed new variants, estimated production quantities, the associated acquisition strategies, strategies to avoid potential production gaps or workforce disruptions, and development and production schedules. The committee recommends $55.8 million for procurement of 40mm cartridges. Other Procurement, Army Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $6.5 billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $6.4 billion, a decrease of $54.3 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Other Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Army unmanned ground vehicle upgrades The committee notes that over the past 10 years, the Army has procured more than 5,000 unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) of various sizes and for numerous missions. The committee also notes that if modified, many of these UGVs could support engineering, military police, and chemical-biological- radiological-nuclear missions, as well as gives them uses in domestic support scenarios. However, the committee is concerned that the Army has not transitioned many of its UGV programs to base budget programs-of-record. For example, the PackBot and Talon systems continue to be managed primarily through Overseas Contingency Operations funding outside the Army's normal upgrade programs. The committee believes that the continued ad hoc nature of the UGV programs will not allow for proper sustainment and upgrades in the future. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to establish a formal acquisition program for fiscal year 2015 to properly facilitate repair, maintenance, and upgrades of the Army's UGVs. The program should comply with current Federal Acquisition Regulations and should be funded through budget lines for research, development, test, and evaluation, procurement, and modifications. Civil Support Team information management needs The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD CST) currently field an information management system that provides a common operating picture, promotes information sharing and real-time collaboration in an emergency situation, and supports the CST mission of assisting and advising first responders and facilitating communications with other Federal resources. The committee has noted that it believes this system should be expanded to follow-on forces, such as the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package and Homeland Defense Response Force units. However, this has not yet occurred to date. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the information management system needs of the Department of Defense WMD response forces, including the needs of both Active and Reserve Components. Criteria on the Recertification and Quantity of GEM-Ts The committee is aware that the Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile Tactical (GEM-T) missile provides an affordable, but critical, capability within the Patriot missile family that includes a complementary interceptor to the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE). At approximately $0.5 million per missile, the GEM-T provides a lower cost option to PAC-3 when used against the same threat and can make possible saving the PAC-3 inventory for other threats. The committee encourages the Army to undertake a GEM-T recertification program when the GEM-T missile certification requires renewal in fiscal year 2015. The committee is aware GEM-T recertification could provide an additional 20 years of service life for the GEM-T missiles the Army believes it requires for its future interceptor inventory. The committee believes such recertification could also promote interoperatibility with allies in Asia and the Arabian Gulf, and it could enable an interceptor mix and inventory that more comprehensively addresses known threats in both quantity and characteristic. The committee is concerned that the missile inventory, both currently maintained and planned, does not take into account the full range of threats facing forward deployed forces; nor does it reflect the fiscal constraints the Army is likely to face in both procurement and research & development in the future. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than October 15, 2013, on current and planned missile inventories, namely GEM-T. This report should review the proposed inventory criteria and quantity of GEM-T recertification. Additionally, it should include a cost-benefit analysis, including an assessment of whether or not recertification meets an Army requirement in a cost-effective manner, to address the full range of threats, including short range ballistic missiles, as well as sustainment and procurement costs of the recertified missiles. This report should be submitted in unclassified form with a classified annex as necessary. Gunshot detection systems The committee believes that gunshot detection systems have proven to be critical part of force protection of military personnel in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The committee notes that in response to joint urgent operational needs, these systems were rapidly fielded, in many cases, for use by soldiers and marines conducting mounted and dismounted operations in OEF and OIF. The committee is aware that these systems proved particularly effective in the sniper detection mission. The committee encourages the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to continue to resource and transition gunshot detection systems to official programs of record in order to continue to develop, test, and field Individual, Vehicle, and Helicopter-borne gunshot detection systems. Joint Tactical Radio System Manpack radio production strategy The budget request contained $382.9 million in other procurement, Army for procurement of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) radios. Of this amount, $323.7 million was for procurement of 2,648 JTRS Manpack radios. The committee notes that the amount of competition in the JTRS program has increased dramatically over the past 3 years. Specifically, the committee notes that the Army is now planning full and open competition for production of each element of the JTRS program, including the JTRS small airborne networking radio, the JTRS small airborne link 16 terminal, the mid-tier networking vehicular radio, the JTRS handheld ``rifleman'' radio, and the JTRS ``Manpack'' radio. The committee also supports the Army's efforts to create a more flexible radio acquisition approach that allows multiple vendors to offer the best available communications technology to meet Army requirements in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations. The committee believes that such an approach may reduce cost through competition, and encourage private sector innovation at little or no cost to the Government. The committee notes that this approach is very different from the Army's traditional, ``winner takes all'' approach to radio competitions in the past, which usually resulted in a sole-source, multi-decade contract arrangements. The committee notes with concern, however, that the Army still has not provided the congressional defense committees formal acquisition strategies that would document the planned awards for JTRS radios. The committee understands that in the case of the Manpack radio the Army may award a single vendor a 5-year contract for full rate production. While such a strategy does provide incentive for manufacturers to reduce radio prices, the committee believes that such an award could discourage losing vendors from competing again in the future. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to consider alternative JTRS Manpack acquisition strategies that would maintain two or more vendors in full rate production for no more than 3 years before the next round of competition if the business case analysis is in the best interest to the warfighter and taxpayer. Such a strategy could balance the need to maintain efficient and cost effective radio production with continued competition and technology improvement. While the committee continues to support full and open competition for tactical radio systems, the committee also cautions the Army against sacrificing critical warfighter requirements to include size, weight, security protocols and life cycle cost of radios. The burden of winning any competition should fall on the manufacturer which must offer a proposal that is compliant with the Army's stated requirements. In addition, the committee encourages the Army to avoid procuring tactical radio systems that operate on proprietary waveforms, have not been tested by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and that have not been or are not procured through full and open competition. The committee recommends $382.9 million, the full amount of the request, for JTRS radios. Patriot Modernization Costs The committee notes that the Army's Air and Missile Defense Strategy signed in September 2012 by the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff acknowledge that current Air and Missile Defense forces must be transformed due proliferated ballistic missiles growing in sophistication and growing threats from cruise missiles and unmanned aerial systems. Furthermore, the strategy reaffirms the need for 360-degree surveillance and fire control, a smaller and more expeditionary force, and integration of networked sensors and weapons. The strategy also stresses the need for modem, modular open architectures and admits that the Army's ability to defeat missile threats is complicated by the decision not to procure the Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS). The committee is concerned that the alternatively proposed Patriot 30-year strategic modernization strategy is a significant expense, does not sufficiently address acknowledged air and missile defense capability gaps and includes no discernible intent to harvest the flight tested, modem, technically mature 360-degree sensors, 360-degree lightweight launchers, and battle manager software developed under MEADS, for which the US taxpayer has expended in excess of $2.4 billion. The draft Patriot modernization strategy proposes spending in excess of $1.0 billion over the next 5 years mostly on sole-source contracts, while deferring development and fielding of expeditionary 360-degree capability until 2029- 2034. Due to declining defense budgets, and consistent with the Department's better buying power initiatives, the committee therefore believes it is premature to commit to the Patriot modernization strategy without a comprehensive and independent life cycle cost analysis of the Patriot 30-year modernization strategy. The committee directs the Congressional Budget Office to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than November 30, 2013, on an analysis of the estimated development and procurement costs associated with the Patriot modernization including integration activities to enable network operations and testing. Such analysis shall also include estimates of: (1) Unit Level Personnel: The direct costs of all operator, maintenance, and other support personnel at operating units (or at maintenance and support units that are organizationally related and adjacent to the operating units); (2) Unit Operations: The unit level consumption costs of operating materials such as fuel, electricity, expendable stores, training munitions, and other operating materials. Also to be included are costs of any unit-funded support activities, training devices, or simulator operations that uniquely support an operational unit, temporary additional duty/temporary duty associated with the unit's normal concept of operations, and other unit-funded services; (3) Maintenance: The costs of labor (outside of the scope of unit level) and materials at all levels of maintenance in support of the primary system, simulators, training devices, and associated support equipment (this includes intermediate maintenance, depot support, and contractor support). Additionally, the cost of contractor labor, materials, and overhead incurred in providing all or part of the logistics support to a weapon system; (4) Sustaining Support: Costs for support services provided by centrally managed support activities external to the units that own the operating systems and that can be identified to a specific system (excludes costs that must be arbitrarily allocated); (5) Continuing System Improvements: The costs of hardware and software updates that occur after deployment of a system that improve the system's safety, reliability, maintainability, or performance characteristics to enable the system to meet its basic operational requirements throughout its life. (Costs for system improvement identified as part of the acquisition strategy or a pre-planned product improvement program and included in the acquisition cost estimate are not included. Also, any improvements of sufficient dollar value that would qualify as distinct major defense acquisition programs are not included.); and (6) Indirect Support: Installation and personnel support costs that cannot be directly related to the units and personnel that operate and support the system being analyzed. Personal protection equipment acquisition strategy The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to reconsider its acquisition process for personal protection equipment (PPE), to include body armor. Given the warfighter's experiences during operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee notes that PPE, in particular body armor, constitutes an essential part of ``warfighter equipment;'' and therefore, it should be treated differently than other, more prosaic consumables, such as socks and undershirts, that are included in the Defense Logistics Agency operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts. The committee encourages the Department to consider adhering to ``best value'' performance standards in soliciting and evaluating proposals for PPE contracts rather than using lowest priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) contract vehicles. The committee believes that categorizing PPE as ``O&M'' may decrease commercial interest in pursuing long-term commitments to developing next-generation PPE technology that could increase capability while also decreasing weight. The committee also notes that previous national defense authorization acts have directed the Department to establish dedicated research, development, test, and evaluation and procurement line items for body armor. The committee is disappointed that the Department has not sufficiently implemented congressional direction regarding this matter. Aircraft Procurement, Navy Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $17.9 billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $18.0 billion, an increase of $30.0 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest F/A-18E/F advance procurement The budget request contained no funds for advance procurement of F/A-18E/F aircraft. The F/A-18E/F is a naval strike fighter aircraft designed for both air-to-air and air- to-ground missions. The committee notes that the Department of the Navy's strike fighter shortfall forecast has decreased from last year's predicted 56 aircraft in fiscal year 2025 to a prediction of 18 aircraft in fiscal year 2023 for fiscal year 2014. However, the committee understands that these revised shortfall numbers are based on a decreased projected rate of F/ A-18 utilization, successful high flight hour inspections on the fleet of F/A-18A through F/A-18D aircraft that would extend their useful flight hours to 9,000, and a service life extension program for 150 F/A-18A through D aircraft that would extend the useful flight hours of those aircraft to 10,000. The committee further notes that the Department of the Navy considers its plan to maintain the required strike fighter inventory with some risk, and the committee believes that a fiscal year 2015 procurement of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft, which have a useful life of 9,000 hours, would reduce the Department of the Navy's risk in maintaining the required inventory of strike fighter aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million for advance procurement of F/A-18E/F aircraft and encourages the Department of the Navy to budget for 24 additional F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2015. MQ-8 Fire Scout The budget request contained $48.7 million for MQ-8 research, development, test and evaluation, and $61.0 million for the procurement of one MQ-8 Fire Scout vertical take-off and landing unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV). The MQ-8 Fire Scout VTUAV provides real-time and non-real time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data to tactical users without the use of manned aircraft or reliance on limited theater or national assets. The committee understands that the MQ-8 has successfully flown over 4,187 hours in support of the Afghanistan ISR Task Force and that MQ- 8 maritime ISR support to special operations forces continues aboard the USS Bradley and USS Roberts in fiscal year 2013. The committee also understands that future weapons and radar capabilities are being integrated into the MQ-8 to meet U.S. Central Command Naval Component urgent operational needs. Additionally, the committee notes that the Department of the Navy plans to procure 34 MQ-8 VTUAVs between fiscal years 2012- 18 to support U.S. Africa Command joint emergent operational needs. The committee views the MQ-8 VTUAV as a critical ISR asset and encourages the Department of the Navy to fully execute its fiscal year 2014 and Future Years Defense Program plans for procurement and development of the MQ-8. Weapons Procurement, Navy Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $3.1 billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $3.1 billion, a decrease of $14.1 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act. Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $589.3 million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $589.3 million, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are identified in division D of this Act. Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $14.0 billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $15.0 billion, an increase of $934.3 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Air and Missile Defense Radar deployment on naval vessels The Navy has reported that the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) suite is being developed to fulfill Integrated Air and Missile Defense requirements for multiple ship classes. This suite consists of an S-band radar (AMDR-S), an X-band radar and a Radar Suite Controller. AMDR would provide multi- mission capabilities, simultaneously supporting long-range, exoatmospheric detection, tracking and discrimination of ballistic missiles, as well as Area and Self Defense against air and surface threats. For the ballistic missile defense capability, increased radar sensitivity and bandwidth over current radar systems are needed to detect, track, and support engagements of advanced ballistic missile threats at the required ranges, concurrent with Area and Self Defense against Air and Surface threats. For the Area Air Defense and Self Defense capability, increased sensitivity and clutter capability is needed to detect, react to, and engage stressing Very Low Observable/Very Low Flyer threats in the presence of heavy land, sea, and rain clutter. According to the Government Accountability Office report ``Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs'' (GAO-13-294SP) from March 2013, ``the Navy plans to install a 14-foot variant of AMDR on Flight III DDG 51s starting in 2019. According to draft AMDR documents, a 14-foot radar is needed to meet threshold requirements, but an over 20-foot radar is required to fully meet the Navy's desired integrated air and missile defense needs.'' The committee supports the continued development of the AMDR capability, but is concerned about the physical limitations associated with the future deployment of this capability on the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, that addresses the following: (1) The capability requirements associated with the AMDR; (2) Required space, cooling and electrical distribution upgrades necessary to support AMDR on the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III; (3) An assessment as to whether the limitations associated with the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III will negatively impact the deployment on AMDR; (4) An assessment of the deployment of AMDR on other naval platforms including the San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock; and (5) An assessment of the expansion capacity of the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III to support further spiral development associated with future weapons. Joint High Speed Vessel report According to the Navy's fiscal year 2014 budget documentation, the Joint High Speed Vessel is being procured as an intra-theater sealift asset. However, the committee has observed growing indications from Department of the Navy leadership that the Joint High Speed Vessel will serve as much more than a troop transport vessel. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2014, on the following items: (1) A complete list of existing required operational capabilities for the JHSV approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC); (2) The number of vessels to be allocated to each combatant commander area of responsibility under that plan; (3) The overseas basing plan to fulfill combatant commander requirements and how dispersal of the vessels will affect each of the JROC-approved operational capability requirements; and (4) An assessment of the future options for additional missions to be fulfilled by the Joint High Speed Vessel and their operational benefits to include the following missions: mine countermeasure operations; joint task force command and control; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; counter-piracy operations; counter-drug operations; and counter- smuggling operations. Littoral Combat Ship radar capabilities The committee is concerned that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) radars are not being optimally used to provide maximum protection. The USS Independence variant's radar can rapidly and accurately detect and track small, fast-moving targets at all altitudes; small surface targets in severe clutter; and rockets, artillery, and mortars launched from shore-based threats. The radar also can perform air and surface surveillance, target identification for weapon systems, and high-resolution splash spotting. The radar has successfully demonstrated simultaneous detection and tracking of air, surface (swarming small boats) and mortar targets in the world's most challenging littoral environments. To ensure that the LCS program fully leverages the various capabilities of its modern radar technologies to protect this new class of ship, the committee encourages the Department of the Navy to fully utilize the capabilities provided by the current LCS radar suite and ensure that the embarked crew is fully trained on the radar's capabilities. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014, on the steps the Navy has taken to enhance LCS sailors' training on the radar's full range of capabilities. Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) oversight The committee notes the Navy plans to acquire 52 Littoral Combat Ship seaframes and 64 mission packages at a cost of approximately $40.0 billion through 2035. Littoral Combat Ships 1-16 are under contract, and Littoral Combat Ships 17-24 are pending authorization. The committee further notes that the Navy's acquisition strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship seaframes has changed several times and continues to evolve as the Navy approaches its next major planned contract award in fiscal year 2016. The Navy has indicated that 10 of the 64 planned mission modules will be procured before the seaframe Milestone B and that this milestone continues to be delayed due to lack of an approved test plan and acquisition program baseline. The Navy expects to procure more than half of the Surface Warfare and Mine Counter Measure modules before it demonstrates they meet minimum requirements. The committee has significant concerns regarding the levels of concurrency associated with the mission modules and the expected delivery of the Littoral Combat Ship seaframes. This dichotomy in capability development appears excessive and the committee believes it should be better aligned to ensure future success of this program. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to prepare a report to the congressional defense committees by March 30, 2014 on the current status of the Littoral Combat Ship program. This report should assess the following: (1) Seaframe production and testing, including: (a) Seaframe developmental test activities and changes made to correct deficiencies identified during testing to date; (b) Weight management for both seaframe variants; (c) Planned Navy surrogate damage and survivability tests using aluminum structures; (d) Progress made in implementing commonality across both variants; (2) Mission module development and testing, including developmental test activities and changes made to correct deficiencies identified during testing to date; (3) Lessons learned and knowledge gained to date from the Singapore deployment; (4) Results of Navy technical and requirements studies and any recommendations for changes to the design and/or capabilities of either current or future LCS; (5) Navy studies, assessments, or potential plans to acquire the Joint High Speed Vessel to operate in conjunction with LCS or perform similar missions; and (6) Role of LCS Council in acquisition oversight and decision-making. Long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels Pursuant to section 231 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense provided the annual long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels on May 10, 2013, as informed by the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for fiscal years 2014-18. The Secretary also indicated that a force structure of ``about 300 ships'' would be necessary to support ongoing naval operations. The Secretary further highlights the ``resourcing challenges outside the FYDP largely due to investment requirements associated with the SSBN(X) program''. The Secretary acknowledges that these ship construction pressures will precipitate higher fiscal requirements in the mid-term planning period (fiscal years 2024-33) requiring an annual investment of $19.8 billion per year in fiscal year 2013 constant dollars. The committee supports a robust shipbuilding plan that invests in the near and long term needs of our Navy, and considers the recapitalization of the SSBN fleet a challenging but necessary strategic priority. However, the committee is concerned that the Navy's ship construction accounts will face significant pressure in supporting long term ship requirements while also resourcing the Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine program. The committee also believes that a significant increase to the ship construction accounts is unsustainable in times of budget challenges. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the average ship construction investment over the last 30 years, in current dollars, is $16.0 billion. Therefore, to better understand the significance associated with even sustaining the current ship construction investment throughout the long-range plan, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committee by March 1, 2014, that provides an update to the long plan for the construction of naval vessels based on $16.0 billion across the entirety of the long- range plan and to assess the corresponding reductions in the shipbuilding plan. The Secretary of the Navy should also provide an assessment of this investment in terms of the health associated with the industrial base, as well as a discussion of alternative strategies for the Navy and Congress to consider in alleviating any shortfalls between this assessment and the May 10 report. Navy Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) modernization The committee is aware of a backlog of overhauls and reliability, maintainability, and availability, (RMA) kits for ship self-defense systems including the Navy's Close-in Weapon System (CIWS). The committee is aware that CIWS is a last line of defense against missiles, rockets and mortars for the preponderance of naval vessels including cruisers, destroyers, and aircraft carriers. The committee also remains concerned about credible threats posed to sailors and marines that rely on these systems for protection in a time of heightened operational tempo. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to deliver a briefing no later than December 31, 2013 to the House Armed Services Committee which details the current situation pertaining to overhauls and RMA kits and efforts address the backlog of these systems. Navy fleet oilers The committee understands that most of the Navy's current fleet oilers are single-hulled, and in 2010, the Navy announced plans to recapitalize fleet oilers with construction of modern, double-hulled ships while leveraging commercial technologies. While the Navy announced plans to start procurement of the new TAO(X) oiler-class in fiscal year 2014, the Navy's fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 budgets have postponed procurement of the TAO(X) fleet oiler until fiscal year 2016. However, the committee is concerned that the Navy budget plans show no Advance Procurement (AP) funding in fiscal year 2014 or fiscal year 2015 toward long lead-time material and components for the first TAO(X), and budget plans reflect a gap year between procurement of the first and second ships. Both actions, unless addressed, are likely to lead to higher costs and delayed delivery of required TAO(X) ships. The committee encourages the Navy and the Department of Defense to allocate fiscal year 2015 funds for AP of long-lead time material and components for the first TAO(X) ship in fiscal year 2016 and to look for ways to eliminate the gap year between first and second ships. Use of fixed-price incentive fee contracts for ship construction contracts The Navy has a history of moving from cost-plus to fixed- price incentive fee (FPIF) contracts after acquiring the first few ships of the class. While fixed-price contracts are generally less risky for the U.S. Government, the committee is concerned about continued cost growth under the FPIF contracts. FPIF contracts are intended to allow the U.S. Government to acquire needed items at lower costs, and with improved delivery or technical performance, by relating the amount of profit or fee to the contractor's performance. In particular, two specific intended outcomes of using incentive contracts are to motivate contractor efforts and to discourage contractor inefficiency and waste. The committee is particularly interested in understanding whether the Navy's use of FPIF contracts for shipbuilding are achieving the intended benefits to the U.S. Government. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, that assesses the following: (1) To what extent has the Navy entered into FPIF contracts for shipbuilding over the past 5-years? To what extent have other contract types been used, including firm-fixed-price? (2) What factors does the Navy consider in making decisions about contract type for shipbuilding programs, and what is the role of the program office, contracting officer, and others in these decisions? (3) For selected recent shipbuilding acquisitions, how has risk been apportioned between the government and the contractor in FPIF contract sharelines? Practically speaking, how has the risk apportionment compared to that under a cost-plus incentive fee contract? (4) Have the Navy's FPIF contracts served, as intended, to motivate shipbuilding contractors to improve performance and reduce inefficiencies? What visibility does the Navy have into these intended outcomes? Other Procurement, Navy Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $6.3 billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $6.2 billion, a decrease of $26.2 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act. Procurement, Marine Corps Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $1.3 billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $1.3 billion, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in division D of this Act. Aircraft Procurement, Air Force Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $11.4 billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $11.7 billion, an increase of $310.2 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest A-10 oxygen delivery systems modernization The budget request contained $47.6 million for A-10 aircraft modifications. The committee supports ongoing modernization of A-10 oxygen delivery systems with On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS). The committee notes that liquid oxygen-based systems are manpower intensive and require significant maintenance and support equipment. The committee is also concerned that the Air Force, at times, must rely upon foreign sources of liquid oxygen when A-10 aircraft are deployed. The committee understands that retrofitting the remaining A-10 aircraft within the Active Duty and Reserve Components that have yet to be modernized with OBOGS could produce significant cost savings over the service life of the aircraft. Therefore, the committee encourages the Air Force to continue conversion of liquid oxygen-based systems to OBOGS in the A-10 fleet. The committee recommends $47.6 million, the full amount of the request, for A-10 aircraft modifications. B-52 Bomber modernization programs The budget request contains $12.6 million in PE 101113F for B-52 Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) development and $87.2 million for B-52 CONECT procurement of 10 kits, but no funds for the B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement (SRR) program. The B-52 SRR program replaces the current B-52 fielded in the 1960s and then upgraded in the 1970s and 1980s. Although modified several times, it has never been totally replaced, and several parts of the system remain from the original design, such as the antenna reflector, feed, and casting. Although sustainable through the current service life of the B-52, the legacy radar system mean-time-between-failure continues to degrade and sustainment costs are expected to significantly increase after 2017. The SRR program is a radar replacement program that may take advantage of the advanced capabilities of modern non-developmental radars, maximizing commonality with other platforms. The B-52 SRR program would integrate, test, and field a modern radar system, which supports all weather targeting and navigation to support the requirements of keeping the B-52 combat capable for its extended service life. However, the SRR program was terminated in the budget request for fiscal year 2013 due to Air Force budget constraints and the need to fund other, higher priorities. Although the committee understands that affordability concerns was the primary driver for the SRR program termination, it is unclear to the committee how the Secretary of the Air Force intends to afford the legacy radar system knowing that sustainment costs are predicted to significantly increase after 2017. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement an affordability strategy for maintaining radar capability on the B-52 aircraft through its predicted service-life of 2040 and to communicate that strategy to the congressional defense committees soon after the affordability strategy is developed. Regarding the previously terminated B-52 CONECT program in the budget request for fiscal year 2013, the committee supports the Secretary's decision reinstating the program in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. However, the committee is concerned with the current plan to only fund and modernize 28 of 76 total aircraft with CONECT capability. The committee reminds the Secretary that section 137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) requires the Secretary to maintain all B-52 aircraft in a common capability configuration. Realizing that the committee in the future may have to address not retaining the nuclear capability for a certain number of B-52 in order to comply with New START requirements, the committee intends to provide no flexibility for not maintaining B-52 aircraft in a common conventional capability configuration. A dissimilar capability configuration adds complexity to supply chain management, aircrew certification, training and employment, and would inherently complicate combatant commander operational planning and execution by having to account for dissimilar aircraft capabilities. Battlefield airborne communications node The committee notes that the battlefield airborne communications node (BACN) system was initially developed to meet an urgent warfighter need. The committee further notes that since its fielding, BACN has provided critical communications and information sharing capability between different tactical data and voice networks in support of operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee believes that the BACN is a needed capability for the future and encourages the Department of the Air Force to continue its effort to transition the BACN to a traditional program of record in fiscal year 2015. C-130H Avionics and Propulsion System Modernization and Upgrade Programs The budget request contained no funds for continuing low rate initial production of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) for C-130H aircraft and $0.4 million in PE 401115F for C-130 airlift squadrons, but no funds for C-130H propulsion system upgrades. The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of the Air Force invested nearly $1.5 billion of taxpayer dollars for engineering, manufacturing, development, and testing of the C- 130 AMP program and has entered Low Rate Initial Production, but has no plans to continue procurement and installation of C- 130 AMP onto legacy C-130H aircraft. The Secretary also has no plans to modernize or upgrade the C-130H propulsion system in order to increase reliability, capability, fuel efficiency and on-wing time of the engine, as well as decrease the overall cost and maintenance burden of the current propulsion system. The Secretary has not articulated to the committee a coherent plan for fleet-wide recapitalization of the C-130H fleet or how they plan to maintain medium-sized intra-theater airlift capacity and capability within both the Active and Reserve Components. Knowing that the majority of the C-130H fleet resides within the Reserve Components of the Air Force and that the C-130H should remain reliable, capable, and relevant to meeting current and future warfighter needs, the committee is concerned with the lack of initiative that the Secretary has taken with regard to the modernization and upgrade of C-130H aircraft. The committee also notes that through cost reduction initiatives and efficiencies gained in the C-130 AMP program over the past year, the cost data that the Secretary used as justification for canceling the C-130 AMP program in the budget request is no longer relevant. Therefore, the committee recommends $26.4 million, an increase of $26.0 million, in PE 401115F for C-130H propulsion system propeller upgrades; $74.3 million, an increase of $15.7 million, for C-130H propulsion system engine upgrades; and $47.3 million, an increase of $47.3 million, for continued procurement of 8 C-130 AMP kits and installation onto C-130H aircraft. Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision that would preserve the nearly $1.5 billion taxpayer investment in the C-130 AMP program and would prohibit the Secretary from canceling the C-130 AMP program. Finally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to immediately obligate authorized appropriations provided in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 to preserve the cost reduction initiatives and efficiencies gained in the C-130 AMP program over the past year. Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft The budget request contained $202.5 million in aircraft procurement, Air Force and research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force, for development and upgrade of Global Hawk unmanned aircraft. The budget request also contained $22.2 million in operation and maintenance, Air Force, for continued operation of Global Hawk unmanned aircraft. In section 154 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), Congress prohibited the proposed retirement of Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned aircraft while also mandating their continued operations through 2014 to meet combatant command intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee stated that this legislation was based on the committee's desire to maintain ISR capability to meet ever-increasing combatant command ISR needs, avoid the retirement of brand new aircraft procured at a cost of more than $100.0 million each, and support the Department of Defense's new strategy that requires long-duration, long-range ISR assets. The committee believes that even after the war in the Republic of Iraq and transition to a reduced U.S. military presence in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, long-range ISR aircraft will be in more demand, not less. The committee notes that as the number of Global Hawk missions in Afghanistan has declined missions in support of U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Central Command, and U.S. Pacific Command have increased. The committee believes that this is due to ongoing and growing demand for ISR of all kinds. While the committee was pleased to see that the Air Force did request funding for Global Hawk Block 30 operations in the budget request for fiscal year 2014, the committee remains concerned that the Air Force is not fully committed to retaining much needed ISR capability, and Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft in particular. As a result, the committee supports further extending Global Hawk operations through 2016 and expects the Air Force to maintain Global Hawk operations and support infrastructure, including active duty and reserve units, through at least this timeframe. Additionally, consistent with its position for fiscal year 2013, the committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to fully execute the fiscal year 2012 Global Hawk Block 30 program, including the procurement of 3 additional aircraft, in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74). MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft The budget request contained $272.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for procurement of 12 MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) systems and $45.3 million for initial spares and repair parts for MQ-9 Reapers. The budget request also contained $30.0 million in research, development, test, and evaluation, Air Force, for the extended range capability for MQ-9 Reapers. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) authorized procurement of 36 new MQ-9 Reapers and associated ground equipment in an effort to accelerate fielding of the upgraded Block 5 version of the MQ-9 Reaper and meet the Air Force's objective for increasing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability. This represented an increase of 12 aircraft above the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The committee is concerned, however, that in response to this action, the Air Force chose to reduce the number of MQ-9 Reaper aircraft in the budget request for fiscal year 2014 from 24 to 12 aircraft. The committee believes that the Air Force must continue to aggressively invest in ISR aircraft. The committee notes that even when the Air Force achieves its current goal of supporting 65 combat air patrols of MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper RPAs, there will be significant unmet demand for ISR capability worldwide. While the committee understands the Air Force's desire to transition away from RPAs that are only capable of operating in permissive threat environments, it believes that the daily demand for both traditional ISR and strike missions in support of global counter-terrorism operations will not decline for many years. Furthermore, the Air Force's efforts to increase the operational range and endurance of the baseline MQ-9 Reaper will expand their utility (when accounting for basing constraints) and further increase demand for these platforms. Finally, the committee seeks to sustain the industrial base for remotely piloted aircraft to ensure that it will be available to build the next generation of RPA systems. The committee recommends $352.2 million, an increase of $80.0 million, in aircraft procurement, Air Force for procurement of 18 MQ-9 Reaper RPA systems. The committee also recommends $56.3 million, an increase of $11.0 million, in aircraft procurement, Air Force, for initial spares and repair parts for these aircraft. The committee expects the Air Force to place all of the funding provided on contract for new MQ-9 aircraft and associated ground equipment during fiscal year 2014. Upgraded ejection seats The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of upgraded ejection seats for B-2 and F-16 aircraft. The committee understands that aircraft aging and heavy operations tempo have produced fatigue and corrosion in legacy ejection seat designs which were designed and procured by the Department of the Air Force in the mid-1970s. The committee further understands that the incorporation of modern helmet mounted displays creates significant risk to pilot survival during high speed ejections because the aerodynamic forces of high-speed ejections could lift the modern helmet off the pilot and generate high neck tension loads. Today's state-of-the-art upgraded ejection seats can effectively address these risks while at the same time providing significantly improved ease of maintenance and increased aircraft availability. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of the Air Force to begin replacing the 1970s-designed ejection seats equipped in most legacy fighter and bomber aircraft with a low cost approach that would emphasize a form, fit, and function solution requiring minimal qualification in legacy Department of the Air Force aircraft. The committee believes that minimizing sustainment life-cycle costs through commonality with currently-fielded components should also be included as a prime determinant in selecting the upgraded ejection seat, and that the B-2 and the F-16 aircraft, which would require the least effort toward flight-worthy qualification of a new ejection seat, should be given upgrade priority. Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $759.4 million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $759.4 million, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act. Missile Procurement, Air Force Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $5.3 billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $5.3 billion, a decrease of $0.7 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act. Other Procurement, Air Force Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $16.8 billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $16.8 billion, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Remotely Piloted Aircraft Squadron Operations Centers for the Air National Guard The budget request contained no funds for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Squadron Operations Centers (RSOC) for the Air National Guard. The committee notes that the Air Force fiscal year 2013 force structure changes approved by the committee included plans to create numerous MQ-1 and MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft remote-split operations and targeting squadrons in the Air National Guard. However, the committee notes with concern that the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6) did not include sufficient funding to begin acquiring the ground-based equipment necessary to stand up these units. Specifically, the committee understands that to reach full capability these units will need fully modernized RSOCs, and that the infrastructure provided by the RSOC supports hosting up to five ground control stations, intelligence analysts, weather personnel, and other critical personnel required for full operations. The committee encourages the Air Force, starting by the fiscal year 2015 budget request, to fully fund RSOC and other equipment required to stand up fully modernized Air National Guard MQ-1 and MQ-9 remote-split operations and targeting units. Procurement, Defense-Wide Overview The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $4.5 billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends authorization of $4.6 billion, an increase of $107.0 million, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Concurrent fielding of equipment for the Army National Guard and Air National Guard The budget request contained $2.7 billion for National Guard equipment modernization. The National Guard and Reserve Components are no longer considered a ``strategic reserve,'' and are now regarded as an ``operational'' force. Since September 2001, over 860,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve Components have been mobilized and served on Active Duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn, of whom over 900 have been killed in action. Domestically, over 50,000 members of the National Guard responded to Hurricane Katrina and, more recently, more than 7,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve Components mobilized in support of Hurricane Sandy. Recognizing the importance of an operational reserve force and the imperative to equip the National Guard and Reserve Components with modernized equipment, in recent years, the committee authorized funding for additional equipment for the Reserve Components to address chronic shortfalls in Army National Guard (ARNG) and Air National Guard (ANG) equipment inventories. Since 2007, Congress has provided approximately $9.2 billion in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account to address this issue, in addition to other targeted funding increases. As a result of these funding increases and sustained investment in the ARNG and ANG, both components are currently at historic highs in terms of equipment-on-hand, with the ARNG at 87 percent and the ANG at 91 percent. However, the committee notes that some of the equipment counted as on-hand is substitute or less-capable versions of the required equipment. The committee acknowledges that the National Guard faces mounting challenges regarding how to replace worn out equipment, legacy equipment that is becoming obsolete or irrelevant, and equipment that is aging through normal wear-and-tear. In addition, long-term gaps in funding remain. The ``National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report for Fiscal Year 2014'' identified an almost $29.7 billion shortfall for the ARNG for fully modernized equipment, approximately 26.6 percent of the total requirement. The report also found a $8.8 billion shortfall for the ANG for fully modernized equipment, which is 14.5 percent of the total requirement. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that these shortfalls may not be addressed based on current Army and Air Force procurement and fielding plans. For example, the committee understands that plans for fielding major weapons systems for the ANG, including the F-35 aircraft, remain far in the future. For the ARNG, fielding of the UH-60M and CH-47F helicopters are planned to stretch out over several decades. The committee recommends that the Army and the Air Force reexamine their funding and fielding plans for all National Guard equipment procurement and that they re-balance those plans to provide the ARNG and the ANG with new equipment concurrent with fielding to Active Duty units. The committee believes that using the National Guard as an operational force, with planned rotations and mobilizations, makes it imperative that National Guard units be provided the necessary resources to man, equip, sustain, and train. The committee recommends $2.7 billion, the full amount requested, for National Guard equipment modernization. Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund The budget request contained $98.8 million for the Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) Fund. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military services have established a number of organizations and programs to respond to requests from units in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), units supporting other combatant commands, and from combatant commanders to rapidly develop and field solutions to a variety of capabilities, including development and transition of new technologies to the warfighter; support for Joint Experimentation Range Complexes; counter-improvised explosive detection and destroy; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensors and systems. The committee notes each of these programs requests amounts for unspecified purposes for hundreds of projects in anticipation of requests from OEF units, other units in other combatant commands, and combatant commanders. The committee believes that this request lacks proper justification and is duplicative with other requests for rapid acquisition capabilities to address urgent operational needs. The committee appreciates that the Department of Defense must find ways to rapidly fund urgent needs to address near- term and high-risk scenarios. As such, Congress provided the Department with Rapid Acquisition Authority in section 806(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), as amended by section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) and section 803 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) which provides the Secretary of Defense $200.0 million in authority, per fiscal year, to waive any statute hindering quick response to immediate warfighter capability requirements in response to combat fatalities. The committee understands the Department has rarely used this authority. The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $98.8 million, for the JUON Fund. Multiyear procurement authority for ground-based interceptors Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision concerning authority for the Director, Missile Defense Agency to enter into 1 or more multiyear contracts, beginning in fiscal year 2014, for the procurement of 14 ground-based interceptors and authority for advanced procurement associated with these ground-based interceptors. The committee notes that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this provision would result in savings of 10 percent for the Department of Defense on the price of a ground- based interceptor, and that buying these interceptors under the current Missile Defense Agency plan of 14 interceptors under 7 annual contracts of 2 per-year would cost about $200.0 million more than a single multiyear contract. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations This section would authorize appropriations for Procurement at the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Army Programs Section 111--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Stryker Vehicle Program This section would limit the obligation of procurement funds of the Stryker program to not more than 75 percent of the fiscal year 2014 requested amount until the Secretary of the Army submits to the congressional defense committees a report on the Stryker vehicle spare parts inventory. Subtitle C--Navy Programs Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for E-2D Aircraft Program This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to procure up to 32 E-2D aircraft utilizing multiyear procurement authority for fiscal years 2014-18. Section 122--Cost Limitation for CVN-78 Aircraft Carriers This section would amend the statutory cost cap for the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-78 that was imposed by subsection (a)(1) of section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109- 364). The cost cap for CVN-78 is currently $11.755 billion, having been adjusted by the Secretary of the Navy in 2010 using the authority granted by subsection (b) of section 122 of Public Law 109-364. This section would raise the cost cap to the Program Manager's most likely Estimate at Completion, as reported in the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report, to $12.9 billion. This section would also update the cost cap associated with CVN-79 and later Ford-class aircraft carriers. The committee notes the receipt of a report to Congress required by section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) that provides cost-saving details that the Navy intends to incorporate into the acquisition strategy to provide better cost stability in CVN-78 and eventual incorporation into CVN-79 procurement process. The committee remains concerned about the continued escalation in costs associated with Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier and the negative consequences associated with this continued escalation on the entirety of the ship construction accounts. This escalation, when taken in the context of the 30-year shipbuilding plan that includes significant costs associated with the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement, is unsustainable. Subtitle D--Air Force Programs Section 131--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Multiple Variants of the C-130J Aircraft Program This section would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to procure multiple variants of the C-130J baseline aircraft utilizing multiyear procurement authority for fiscal years 2014-18. Section 132--Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of Avionics Modernization Program for C-130 Aircraft This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from terminating the legacy C-130H Avionics Modernization Program. Section 133--Retirement of KC-135R Aircraft This section would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to remove KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft from flyable storage, which would permit the Secretary to utilize parts and components of retired KC-135E aircraft to enter the supply chain for maintaining and sustaining KC-135R aerial refueling aircraft. This section would also require the Secretary to maintain any retired KC-135R aircraft in a flyable condition that would permit recall to active flying service in the Department of the Air Force. This section would also permit the Secretary of the Air Force, on a ``one-for-one'' basis, to remove KC-135R aircraft from the flyable storage requirement for each new KC-46A aircraft delivered to the Department of the Air Force. Section 134--Competition for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Providers This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement a plan to ensure the fair evaluation of competing contractors in awarding a contract to a certified evolved expendable launch vehicle provider. This plan would include descriptions of how the following areas would be addressed in the evaluation: the proposed cost, schedule, and performance; mission assurance activities; the manner in which the contractor will operate under the Federal Acquisition Regulation; the effect of other contracts in which the contractor is entered into with the Federal Government, such as the evolved expendable launch vehicle launch capability and the space station commercial resupply services contracts; and any other areas determined appropriate by the Secretary. This section would also require that the Secretary submit a report to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that includes the aforementioned plan or provide a briefing to the appropriate congressional committees on the plan. After the Secretary provides the report or briefing to Congress, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of the plan. Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters Section 141--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Ground-based Interceptors The section would provide the Director, Missile Defense Agency with authority to enter into 1 or more multiyear contracts, beginning in fiscal year 2014, for the procurement of 14 ground-based interceptors. This section would also provide authority for advanced procurement associated with these ground-based interceptors. This section would also require that such contracts include a requirement that they be subject to the availability of appropriation for these purposes. Section 142--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tactical Wheeled Vehicles This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a 5-year pilot program for the multiyear procurement of tactical wheeled vehicles. This section would also require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, their intent to award such a contract, and if not, justification for not pursuing the pilot program. If the program is implemented, this section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to submit, as part of the Department's justification materials in support of the President's annual budget request, detailed information on the status, progress, and challenges associated with implementation of the pilot program. The committee notes that the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force have validated requirements for tactical wheeled vehicles. The committee also notes that the Department of Defense has procured certain tactical wheeled vehicles, including the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, the Medium Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Replacement, and the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles, through multiyear procurement contracts and achieved significant cost savings. Section 143--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of RQ-4 Global Hawk Unmanned Aircraft Systems This section would limit the use of funds to retire Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned aircraft systems and would require the Secretary of the Air Force to take all actions necessary to maintain the operational capability of the RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk through December 31, 2016. Section 144--Personal Protection Equipment Procurement This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that within each military service procurement account, a separate procurement budget line item is designated for personal protection equipment (PPE) investment and funding transparency. Section 145--Repeal of Certain F-35 Reporting Requirements This section would amend section 122 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) by striking subsection (b), and re-designating subsection (c) as subsection (b). Section 146--Study on Procurement of Personal Protection Equipment This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a contract with a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to conduct a study to identify and assess alternative and effective means for stimulating competition and innovation in the personal protection equipment industrial base, to include body armor. This section would also require that within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the FFRDC shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report detailing the findings and recommendations from the study. In addition, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the findings and recommendations of the FFRDC study, along with the complete study. TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION OVERVIEW The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $67.5 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation. This represents a $2.8 billion decrease over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends $68.0 billion, an increase of $559.2 million to the budget request. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test, and evaluation program are identified in division D of this Act. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army Overview The budget request contained $7.9 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army. The committee recommends $7.9 billion, a decrease of $47.0 million to the budget request. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test, and evaluation, Army program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Active protection system research and development The committee notes that as a result of the removal of a requirement for an active protection system (APS) on the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle that the budget request included no funding for APS research and development. The committee is concerned that this lack of investment may soon create a critical capability gap for Army combat vehicles due to the rapid proliferation of advanced anti-tank guided missiles and next-generation rocket propelled grenades. The committee notes that there are numerous types of APS available, including some that have already been fielded on operational vehicles in other countries. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to establish and fund a program to conduct APS research and development starting in the fiscal year 2015 budget request. Army advanced multi-purpose tank round program The budget request contained $30.6 million in PE 63639A for tank and medium caliber ammunition research and development. Of this amount, no funding was requested for the Advanced Multi- Purpose (AMP) 120mm round program. The committee notes that in response to an urgent need, the Marine Corps has initiated procurement of a new multi-purpose, high-explosive (MPHE) 120mm round for M1A1 Abrams tanks. The committee understands that this MPHE round has a data link allowing the crew to select different fuse settings, including point detonation, delay, and airburst, which combines the effects of several current rounds into one. The committee believes that this round could potentially also fulfill some of the Army's requirements for the Advanced Multi-Purpose 120mm round program, which went through initial testing in 2006 and may begin further development in fiscal year 2015. The committee encourages the Army to assess the current capability of the Marine Corps' MPHE round to potentially meet AMP requirements in order to potentially save funding and avoid starting a redundant program. The committee recommends $30.6 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63639A for tank and medium caliber ammunition development. Army air and missile defense The committee is concerned that the Army's air and missile defense units may not have the capacity and capabilities to address threats in current and future anti-access, area denial environments. The committee believes that the Army should be prepared to provide missile and air defenses for both static locations and maneuvering forces inside a region facing a sophisticated A2/AD threat. The committee believes that mobility and creative employment concepts are vital to the future success of Army air and missile defenses. The committee also believes that the Army should seek to exercise its air and missile defense capabilities with allies in Asia Pacific region on a regular basis in order to enhance our capabilities and encourage our allies to develop more comprehensive air and missile defense systems. Army cargo unmanned aerial system The committee notes that the Marine Corps is conducting a successful demonstration using an unmanned aerial system (UAS) to move cargo loads of up to 4,500 pounds in remote areas of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The system in question has been deployed for 15 months to-date. The use of this cargo UAS has reduced the need to use manned aircraft or vehicles to provide supplies to remote operating locations, thus providing substantial force protection benefits. The committee is concerned that the Army, despite having very similar logistical challenges, does not have a cargo UAS program. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, by February 15, 2014, assessing the potential utility of an Army cargo UAS. Specifically, the report should address: (1) How cargo UAS capabilities could be incorporated into the Army's logistics operations from point-of- supply through delivery to point-of-need; (2) An estimate of the cost to procure, operate, and sustain cargo UAS in comparison to using manned rotorcraft for the same missions; and (3) Any additional operational or logistical impacts to the Army of fielding a cargo UAS. Army directed energy testing The committee is aware of the U.S. Army's current test effort through the Solid State Laser Testbed (SSLT) program, to examine the utility of directed energy technology as a supplement to current capabilities for force protection of rocket, artillery, and mortar threats. The committee stresses the importance of directed energy research and encourages the Army's continuation of those efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on SSLT program efforts. The briefing should include the following: (1) Overview and results of the test campaign; (2) The current status of plans to incorporate directed energy as a supplement to, or replacement for, the current counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar program of the Army; (3) The projected mission utility based on current test results including the number of directed energy systems required to replace existing systems; (4) Potential advantages and disadvantages in regards to magazine depth and associated costs; and (5) Any logistical or operational challenges that remain to be addressed prior to deployment of a directed energy system, including satellite and aircraft interference as well as the maintenance of sophisticated laser technology in austere environments. Army modernization strategy for tactical communications waveforms The committee supports the Army's efforts to provide additional tactical network communications capability to the individual soldier. The committee believes that building a high-capacity, secure tactical Internet system will be useful in a range of military operations and will also enhance the warfighter's ability to communicate, survive, and fight. The committee notes that the Joint Tactical Radio System and the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical programs are both critical parts to building the tactical Internet system and continues to support both programs. The committee also notes that thus far, the Army has chosen to develop and use waveforms unique to the military for transmitting data, including the High-capacity Network Waveform (HNW), the Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW), and the Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW). While it recognizes the needs for this technology, the committee also encourages the Army to expand its research and development efforts to better leverage commercial wireless technology waveforms, such as second generation, third generation, and fourth generation long-term evolution cellular phone waveforms. The committee believes that these efforts could result in substantial savings for the Army by taking advantage of the vast amount of private sector research and development that already exists, both in terms of hardware and software technology. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to develop commercial waveforms for tactical communications that are compliant with the 3rd Generation Partnership Project and other applicable industry standards to the extent it is practical given military and security requirements. Combat vehicle fuel efficiency engine development The committee applauds the recent efforts of the Department of the Army to improve the fuel efficiency of the M1 Abrams tank. These efforts offer improved cost savings for the Department as well as increased operating capabilities. The committee encourages the Army to consider modern diesel technology for future applications into combat vehicles which would also take into account total life cycle costs. Continued development of vehicle underbody protection systems The committee recognizes the continued threat improvised explosive devices (IEDs) pose to ground combat and tactical vehicles. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to continue to study underbody vulnerabilities to combat and tactical vehicles posed by IEDs, in particular the high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled vehicle. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to continue to test and develop solutions that would improve survivability of vehicle underbodies, to include protective systems for fuel tanks and fuel bladders. The committee believes that there should be an emphasis on low-cost solutions that reduce the possibility of a post-blast fire while minimizing engineering changes to the vehicle. The committee also recognizes the recent advances in light composite materials with self-healing capabilities and encourages the Secretary of the Army to evaluate their use in new production vehicle programs and current vehicle recapitalization programs. Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment The committee notes that section 313 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) identified concern regarding soldier and civilian personnel exposure to environmental hazards, including burn pits, dust and sand, hazardous materials and waste. The committee notes that service members who are deployed lack a flexible and wearable system to protect them from inhaled hazards, and therefore have to often resort to using shirts or other cloth to cover their faces in dusty or smoky environments. While the committee is aware of current Army filter-based protective equipment, such as gas masks, there are also potential fabric-based solutions to these hazards that are wearable variants of the material already used by the Army. The committee understands that these fabric-based solutions could be used to mitigate a significant amount of soldier exposure to the potentially hazardous effects of inhaling sand, dust, smoke, and pollutants, such as diesel exhaust and lead. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2014, evaluating the potential utility of fabric- based solutions to address soldier exposure to inhalation of sand, dust, smoke, and pollutants. Improved turbine engine program The budget request contained $81.0 million in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology. The committee continues to support the operational and performance goals of the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) which includes a 50-percent increase in engine power and a 25- percent fuel savings. The committee understands that ITEP is designed to provide longer life, improved maintainability, and reduced costs to meet the operational requirements for the Army's current and next-generation vertical lift aircraft. The committee recognizes and commends the Army for establishing a firm requirement for the ITEP engine and for successful completion of the Material Development Decision in 2012. The Army should continue to fund competitive prototyping at a minimum through milestone B. The committee believes that further competing to a preliminary flight rating test (PFRT) milestone, or preferably through a flight demonstration of each competing engine, will control costs, reduce programmatic risk and modeling/simulation shortfalls. Further, the committee believes maintaining competition through PFRT or beyond will allow the Army to make a more informed selection for an engine that will be in the operational force for decades. Selecting the appropriate point at which to down select to a single engine contractor is a crucial step to ensure the taxpayers and Department of Defense get the best value in investment and performance. Therefore the committee encourages the Army to take both competitive engines at a minimum through PFRT, and preferably through flight demonstration, to control development and program cost, mitigate technical risk, validate performance and ensure the warfighter receives the best possible solution. The committee recommends $81.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology. Innovative approaches in wound care research The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has identified a key research requirement for improved techniques for wound care, particularly for combat-related trauma. The committee notes that there is preliminary data that suggests that plasma technologies have the potential for promoting wound healing by de-activating pathogens in the wound, stopping bleeding without damage to healthy tissue, and other effects that lead to rapid healing and tissue regeneration. The committee recognizes that further experimentation is essential to demonstrate the potential benefit of this technology, as well as to satisfy regulatory requirements of the Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, the committee encourages the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center to evaluate short-pulsed electric discharge plasma technology for potential use in military wound care settings. Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program The budget request contained $15.1 million in PE 65450A for Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) research and development. The committee continues to support the JAGM program based on the need for a replacement to the Hellfire missile program that provides an all-weather, long-range moving target capability. In addition, the continuation of the JAGM program would help sustain the tactical missile industrial base. Missile technology remains an area of asymmetric advantage for the United States that the committee believes must be retained. The committee notes that the Army restructured the JAGM program to use an incremental approach starting in fiscal year 2012. Specifically, the Army decided to pursue only a ``dual mode'' seeker with limited capability as part of Increment 1 of the new acquisition strategy, with milestone B planned in fiscal year 2015. As part of this milestone B, the committee understands that the Army may decide to retain only one contractor during the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase for JAGM Increment 1. The committee is concerned that such an approach could prematurely narrow the Army's technology options and increase the risk that the JAGM program would never fully meet the requirements validated in 2012 by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. As a result, the committee encourages the Army to retain two contractors during Increment 1 EMD. The committee believes that employing an approach that retains competition during Increment 1 EMD would help lower costs and ensure the best possible weapon system performance. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 15, 2014, that details the funding required to maintain two contractors during JAGM Increment 1 EMD. The committee recommends $15.1 million, the full amount requested, in PE 65450A for JAGM research and development. Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System The budget request contained $98.5 million in PE 12419A for the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS). The committee notes that in January 2012, the Army decided to not procure any JLENS orbits. However, the committee understands that the Army has used elements of the two orbits built during system development for additional testing and capability demonstration purposes. The committee notes that in September 2012, the Army and Navy executed a joint live-fire event to demonstrate Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air capability. In a December 2012 demonstration, JLENS showed its potential capability to track and detect ballistic missiles and large caliber rockets during their ascent phase. These successful demonstrations illustrate that JLENS could provide U.S. forces a significant operational advantage in areas like the Strait of Hormuz, the Republic of Korea, and elsewhere. Given these demonstration events, and the significant threat posed by cruise missiles, small boats, and ballistic missiles, the committee expects the Army to use the funding authorized in fiscal year 2014 to proceed with plans to conduct additional system demonstration efforts. The committee also notes, however, that the Army has now dropped plans for an initial operational test in fiscal year 2014. Absent realistic test events, the committee is not convinced that JLENS warrants any further development. The committee recommends $68.5 million, a decrease of $30.0 million, in PE 12419A for the JLENS. With the funds provided, the committee expects the Army to prioritize additional demonstration events planned for fiscal year 2014. M4 Carbine powered rail system The committee has a long record of supporting Army research efforts aimed at reducing soldier equipment weight. The committee notes that the Army conducted a $2.7 million small business innovation research (SBIR) program starting in 2012 that sought to develop a soldier-carried electrical power solution integrated into the M4 carbine. The purpose of this competitively awarded SBIR program was to provide more soldier power at less weight. The committee understands that the system has now been developed and tested, and that it has the potential to reduce weight carried by soldiers in the form of batteries and provide an integrated data transfer capability for M4 carbine accessories. However, the committee notes with concern that the Army has not yet decided to proceed to the next step with this program. As the Army continues it's evaluation, the committee encourages the Army to proceed with an expanded user evaluation of this system to ensure that it has sufficient information to determine whether or not it warrants further development. The committee expects that should the Army decide to continue development of this system that any long term procurement decision will be based on full and open competition. Man-portable electronic warfare The committee is aware that current and future adversaries will continue to use radio-controlled improvised explosive devices (IED) and standard radio tactics to coordinate attacks on our troops and personnel. In many cases, forward-deployed small units and military intelligence units do not have small, compact, lightweight electronic warfare (EW) systems capable of responding to these threats. The committee believes that what is needed is a next generation, compact, tactical EW system that provides more adequate soldier protection from wireless threats, target finding, and combat situational awareness is a man-portable unit. The committee is also aware that the Department has significant investments in new EW capabilities, including Army investments to develop a small soldier-worn package for counter-IED, threat avoidance, and intelligence gathering capabilities. The committee recognizes that such a system for dismounted tactical combat operations will have great utility to all of the military services and agencies, including the special forces and military intelligence communities. The committee encourages the Department to continue development of such EW systems and to pursue deployment as rapidly as is practicable. Modeling and simulation for advanced materials The committee recognizes the importance of utilizing virtual reality and modeling and simulation tools to provide cutting-edge, cost-effective training and technology development for the Nation's warfighters. Leveraging these technologies is an especially relevant adjunct to live training given the future of declining defense budgets. The committee is pleased with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory's implementation of virtual reality centers as a coordinated effort to broaden use of virtual training methods. These centers include the use of a variety of training tools that give the warfighter and developers alike, a realistic training experience that contributes to improved readiness and system effectiveness. These centers will also allow for technology development through modeling and simulations prior to real product development. The committee believes that centers like the Center for Cold Spray Research and Development, which simulates material and process development for technologies such as munitions enhancements, would benefit from increased utilization of virtual reality and modeling and simulations tools. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to continue its development and application of modeling and simulation concepts, tools and investments in order to maintain robust, cost-effective training capabilities. Modular protective systems for wheeled vehicles The committee understands that restoring equipment readiness is a key element of the Army and the Marine Corps equipment reset process. In current combat operations, vehicle and aircraft usage rates are several times greater than peacetime rates and the harsh environment also takes a toll on equipment, especially the Army and the Marine Corps's ground combat tactical vehicle fleets. The committee recognizes the critical need to repair, recapitalize, and replace damaged or worn out combat and tactical vehicles after 12 years of high operational tempo in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The committee also notes there is a critical requirement to continue to modernize the combat and tactical vehicle fleets. The committee supports ongoing modernization programs such as the Joint Light Tactical vehicle program, and the Ground Combat Vehicle program as being essential for long-term modernization of these fleets. The committee understands the Army and the Marine Corps are developing long-term acquisition strategies for their respective combat and tactical vehicle fleets. The committee expects these strategies to include a long-term armoring strategy component that would adopt the lessons learned from OEF and OIF regarding the need for improved survivability for all vehicles. As the Army and the Marine Corps begin to recapitalize their vehicle fleets, the committee encourages both services to consider the cost and operational benefits of using modular, scalable protection kits as part of any long- term modernization plan and armoring strategy. Multi-mission electronic warfare Enemy communications, jammers, improvised explosive device triggers, and radar systems are constantly changing and becoming more and more difficult to counter. The proliferation of unmanned vehicles has also expanded the scope of electronic warfare (EW) threats facing our country today. The committee believes that in order to address these evolving threats, the next generation EW system must be designed to perform multiple types of EW missions such as detection and attack of modern equipment, coordination with tactical communications, intelligence gathering, differentiation of ground from air targets, and direction finding (DF). The committee is aware that the Army Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate is developing such an advanced technology. This technology will provide our warfighers with multi-mission integrated EW for high speed DF, advanced jamming, and signals intelligence all in one package. The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense fully support this research and development effort and where possible, accelerate its deployment. Nano-scale electronics and materials The committee is aware of the potential benefits of electronics and other nanomaterials engineered at the nano- scale, including reduced size, weight, power consumption and other electrical properties. The committee is also aware that the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) supports work in this area to ensure warfighter benefits from the most advanced nano- enabled technologies, such as microchip-based energetics with controlled combustion reactions, carbon and organic conductor- based printable electronics, solar cells and high-energy density capacitors, nano-engineered integrated sensors for chemical, biological, and nuclear threat detection, and nanomaterial-based heat transfer and thermal management systems. The committee encourages the Army to continue investment in further developing these technologies incubated at ARL. Night vision systems engineering development The budget request contained $43.4 million in PE 64710A for night vision systems engineering development. The committee notes that over the past 12 years the Army has invested significant levels of funding in thermal sights and other advanced night vision devices for small arms weapons. The committee understands that additional upgrades to existing night vision devices may be possible through development and modification of clip-on retrofits, which could enhance optical device performance without the need to procure entirely new devices. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to consider funding efforts to evaluate and develop such retrofits as part of its overall night vision systems research, development, test, and evaluation efforts. The committee expects that any future development effort would be pursued through full and open competition. The committee recommends $43.4 million, the full amount requested, in PE 64710A, for night vision systems engineering development. Regenerative and rehabilitative engineering The committee is aware that the human toll of 12 years of war has resulted in casualties that have maimed, disfigured and debilitated thousands of service members. The committee is also aware that the Department of Defense has funded numerous medical research activities to improve the tactical combat casualty care of service members, as well as supporting the longer-term health needs of the military. Emerging areas of regenerative engineering and rehabilitative medicine are transforming military medical care and are quickly transitioning into the public health care sector. The committee applauds efforts, such as the Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM) as a means to innovate in these emerging areas. AFIRM was established as a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary network including military institutions working closely with medical and research universities to develop advanced treatment options for severely wounded servicemen and women, such as face and limb transplants and burn treatment. The committee encourages the Department to continue to adequately fund AFIRM, and to continue researching, piloting and transitioning new techniques for regenerative and rehabilitative health care that will support both military members and the civilian population at-large. Stryker survivability systems integration program The budget request contained $50.0 million in PE 63653A for Stryker vehicle research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee supports the Army's plans for ongoing RDT&E for the Stryker vehicle. The committee notes that even with the procurement of a third brigade set of upgraded ``double V'' Stryker vehicles that the Army will have six brigade sets of less well-protected ``flat bottom'' Stryker vehicles. As a result, the committee supports innovative efforts to increase the protection level of these vehicles. In particular, the committee continues to support the ongoing program executive officer (PEO) ground systems Stryker vehicle survivability systems integration study program. The committee notes that this program is intended to deliver several integration studies reviewing the potential for adding occupant centric survivability technologies to the Stryker vehicle. The committee understands that these kit-based solutions could be installed during depot reset or in the field, providing maximum flexibility to the Army. The committee encourages PEO ground systems and the program manager Stryker to use Stryker RDT&E and modifications funds to develop and install technologies from this effort that enhance Stryker occupant safety. The committee recommends $50.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63653A for Stryker vehicle RDT&E. Tactical vehicle armor development program The committee understands the tactical vehicle armor development (TVAD) program consists of the development and maturation of a lightweight, affordable ceramic/composite opaque armor solution for tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) ballistic threats, to include improvised explosive devices. The committee recognizes that although lightweight solutions for these threats exist, these solutions have been cost prohibitive for the TWV fleet because of high material prices and/or inefficient production manufacturing processes. The committee understands the goal of the TVAD program is to design a lightweight, affordable solution that utilizes low cost materials in a manner that is easy to transition the end product from prototype to full rate production at an affordable cost. The committee supports this effort, however the committee is concerned that the Army is inadequately funding this critical initiative. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to fully fund this program across the Future Years Defense Program. Thermal injury protection in combat and tactical vehicles The committee understands that the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) has established an occupant centric survivability program, with a goal of examining technologies that can significantly protect against vehicle occupant casualties. The committee supports this effort. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Director, TARDEC to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that outlined the status of the Army's evaluation of occupant centric survivability systems for combat and tactical vehicles. The committee has reviewed the report and has concerns regarding the development and application of systems that could be used to prevent thermal injury. The committee notes that technologies like fuel containment, fire retardants, fire suppression, fire prevention, and personal fire protection may improve occupant safety as well as vehicle survivability. These technologies are currently being applied in a limited scope. While the committee commends this effort, it believes that additional analysis over current thermal injury survivability requirements is still required. The committee directs the Director, U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that outlines the advisability and feasibility of establishing objective and threshold survivability operational requirements for thermal injury prevention in ground combat and tactical vehicles. The committee expects the briefing to include, but not be limited to: fuel containment; fire retardants; fire prevention; fire suppression; and personal protection. Third generation forward-looking infrared sensors The committee notes that second generation forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensors currently deployed across the Army are a critical capability that provides U.S. forces significant advantages in combat. However, the committee understands that countermeasures continue to evolve that could degrade and potentially overmatch second generation FLIR capabilities. In addition, second generation FLIR technology is now 20-years old and is at risk of becoming obsolete. The committee believes the Army must continue to invest in third generation FLIR development and fielding, and that doing so requires the sustainability of the U.S. FLIR industrial base to meet the Army's next generation FLIR requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2014, that outlines the state of FLIR technology and requirements for ground systems including, but not limited to, the Ground Combat Vehicle program. The report should also include the Army's specific annual investment strategy to sustain the U.S. FLIR industrial base and to develop and produce third generation FLIR sensors. Ultra Lightweight Reconnaissance Robotic capability The committee understands that the Army has identified an operational need for an Ultra Lightweight Reconnaissance Robotics (ULRR) capability for forward deployed units currently operating in overseas contingency operations. The committee supports and encourages the rapid fielding of this capability to forward deployed forces and also directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2013 on the advisability and feasibility of incorporating this capability as part of an enduring requirement for all active and reserve component units. Use of simulation technology in medical training The committee appreciates the Department of Defense's work to reduce the use of live animals in combat trauma training courses when appropriate as detailed in the report to Congress on the ``Strategy to Transition to Use of Human-Based Methods for Certain Medical Training''. The committee acknowledges the Department of Defense's significant investment over the past decade in the development of simulation technology and shares its commitment to improve and modernize the training of military medical personnel without degradation to combat trauma care. A 2009 Department report projected that validated simulators for most ``high volume/high value'' medical procedures could be developed by 2014. The most recent report provides an updated and estimated timeline to 2017 and beyond. As such, the committee encourages the Department to continue a transition to human-based methods and to further refine the timeline for the replacement of the use of live animals in combat trauma training courses when appropriate, and where modern validated simulators are able to provide equally effective training that achieves established combat casualty survival rates without degradation to combat trauma care. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy Overview The budget request contained $15.9 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy. The committee recommends $16.0 billion, an increase of $58.1 million to the budget request. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Acoustic intelligence collection capability The committee believes that the ability to obtain acoustic intelligence on foreign submarines is a critical national security need. Specifically, the committee believes that it should be a priority to develop technology that is capable of burying undersea cables beneath the seabed, and that the development of this technology to the fleet could result in significant cost savings to the Navy. The committee encourages the Office of Naval Research to consider funding initiatives that could lead to development of a low-cost Array Burial Vehicle capable of installing acoustic intelligence systems, and which could be equipped with a real-time control system which provides shipboard operators information necessary to safely, reliably, and efficiently install complex multi-branch undersea cable systems. Augmentation of ultra high frequency communications satellite systems using near space technologies The committee is concerned that the Navy's constellation of ultra-high frequency (UHF) communication satellites and associated user terminals may not meet the tactical communications needs of the Department in the near future. This concern is based on the committee's belief that the current constellation of UHF satellites, the Ultra-High Frequency Follow-On program, is aging, fragile, and may be increasingly subject to sudden failures. The committee notes that the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellite system, which is intended to provide increased capability in this area, has been delayed. However, the committee is aware of alternative technologies that could potentially be used by the Navy, in concert with the MUOS program, to close potential gaps in tactical UHF communications. Specifically, the committee notes the potential capabilities of high-altitude, near space systems, such as balloons, to bolster and complement existing UHF networks. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the committee, no later than October 1, 2013, on a review of existing high-altitude, near space technologies that could provide additional UHF capacity and outline the approximate cost, schedule, and feasibility of acquiring this additional capacity. Carrier-based unmanned air vehicle system testing and development The budget request contained $21.0 million in PE 64402N for the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS), and $146.7 million in PE 64404N for the Unmanned Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system. The committee has noted in the past that the Secretary of the Navy has not fully leveraged technology development activities in the UCAS program that would reduce UCLASS program risk. The committee is aware that the Secretary of the Navy has again reduced the planned scope of technology development activities in fiscal year 2014 for the UCAS program by deleting the requirement for the X-47B aircraft to demonstrate unmanned autonomous aerial refueling from an airborne tanker, thereby increasing the development risk in the UCLASS program. The committee disagrees with the Secretary's approach to the UCAS program and disagrees with increasing the concurrency and developmental risk being sewn into the acquisition strategy of the UCLASS program. Therefore, the committee recommends $41.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million, in PE 64402N for the UCAS program. Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision that would require the Secretary of the Navy to demonstrate unmanned autonomous aerial refueling with the X-47B UCAS aircraft, and another provision that would prohibit the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from approving a milestone A technology development contract award for the UCLASS program until 30 days after the Under Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the software and system engineering designs for the control system and connectivity segment and the aircraft carrier segment of the UCLASS system can achieve, at a low level of integration risk, successful compatibility and operability with the air vehicle segment planned for selection at milestone A contract award. Cognitive wireless networks for naval applications The committee recognizes that the increasing complexity of computing and telecommunications devices is providing emerging opportunities to improve and streamline Department of Defense processes. The committee notes that new methods for leveraging cognitive wireless networking systems will empower the ability of the Department to carry out diverse applications in new ways, as well as opening up the possibilities for entirely new applications. The committee encourages the Department to invest in research supporting the development and maturation of cognitive networking applications, such as environmental infrastructure and human health monitoring, ad-hoc networks using commercial mobile phones, smart camera networks, mobile cloud computing, and smart utility networks. One area where the committee believes that improvements in cognitive wireless networking might be helpful is in naval ship machinery systems. The committee is aware that ships of the near future will have increased complexity in design and operation, as well as interaction and inter-dependencies with other systems. At the same time, demands for shipboard resources are expected to exceed installed capacity, requiring complex optimization of allocation to shipboard loads. The committee believes that the development and implementation of a new generation of automatic control and communications on ships, including wireless networks, will allow for increased capacity with reduced manning. Marine Corps unmanned airborne electronic attack systems The committee notes that the Marine Corps plans to transition from using EA-6B Prowler aircraft as its primary airborne electronic warfare platform to a combination of F-35B Lightening II aircraft with built-in electronic warfare capability and other aircraft carrying electronic warfare pods. While the committee supports this plan, it also encourages the Marine Corps to develop electronic warfare capability for unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The committee believes a network of electronic warfare systems that combines manned and unmanned platforms would provide increased performance and flexibility for operational commanders. Therefore, the committee directs the Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide a classified report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2014, that outlines the potential advantages and disadvantages of the use of UAS for electronic warfare, and any current plans the Marine Corps has to develop such systems. The report should also address, but not be limited to, estimated acquisition and operating costs, crew safety, and mission effectiveness of potential unmanned systems compared to available manned airborne electronic warfare systems. Maritime Laser Weapon System The committee applauds the Navy's efforts in directed energy research and encourages the continuation of those efforts. The committee is also encouraged by the recent decision to deploy the Laser Weapon System (LaWS) for further testing and evaluation on the USS Ponce, in a stressing maritime environment. The committee believes such operational testing is necessary to work out the technical challenges inherent in directed energy systems, in addition to identifying potential integration and policy challenges that might prove to be impediments to transitioning these types of systems to the fleet. Additionally, the committee recognizes that the Navy is developing other advanced technologies which will present similar integration challenges, in particular with regards to power generation, storage, and delivery. The committee encourages the Navy to begin developing a broadly applicable strategy for addressing these power challenges in order to facilitate technology integration onto naval vessels in the future. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the testing efforts related to the LaWS deployment. The briefing should include: (1) An overview of the test campaign plans and success criteria; (2) Details of weapon system use and performance; (3) A comparison of system performance with conventional weapons systems; (4) A discussion of the associated power requirements with a comparison of the anticipated power requirements for other advanced weapons systems; and (5) Unforeseen challenges associated with system maintenance and longevity in a maritime environment. Multi-Stage Supersonic Target development program The budget request contains $53.0 million in PE 64258N for aerial target system development. Of this amount, $33.1 million was requested for the Multi-Stage Supersonic Target (MSST) development program. The MSST emulates a threat adversary three-stage anti-ship cruise missile that has a subsonic bus vehicle which will separate during its terminal phase of flight from a supersonic sprint stage vehicle that will continue its flight to impact. The fielded MSST system will provide threat representation and will identify deficiencies in shipboard air defense systems. In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to notify the congressional defense committees if the MSST program's estimated Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is delayed more than 90 days, or if the costs associated with the program exceeds 10 percent of programmed funding. On February 8, 2012, the Secretary of the Navy notified the congressional defense committees that the MSST program would exceed the original acquisition program baseline cost by more than 10 percent, and in June 2012, the MSST prototype experienced a flight test failure which required the Secretary to put development efforts on hold. On April 18, 2013, the Secretary subsequently notified the congressional defense committees that a new IOC date of May 2016, instead of December 2014, has been established. The committee recognizes the challenges associated with the development of a new threat target system given the assessed complexity and capabilities of the actual threat missile. But the committee also remains concerned that the Navy still does not have a threat representative target fielded in order to assess vulnerabilities and susceptibilities of naval air defense systems, as well as assess the effectiveness of potential countermeasures that could be developed to defend against an MSST threat. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary to maintain a robust and fully resourced MSST development strategy and encourages the Secretary to provide the committee frequent updates as the MSST program progresses toward its May 2016, IOC milestone. Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development The budget request contained $136.0 million in PE 64786N for offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development. In 2009, the U.S. Pacific Fleet validated an Urgent Operational Needs Statement for an over-the-horizon surface warfare missile that can be launched from aircraft or surface vessels and strike well-defended, moving maritime targets without reliance on external inputs. This need is even more relevant today and is critical to meeting national security objectives and rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. The committee supports the Secretary of the Navy's pursuit for the rapid development and deployment of a long-range, anti-ship missile that is capable of penetrating sophisticated enemy air- defense systems from long range. It should be capable of operating autonomously in a denied signal environment, without relying on input of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance or global positioning system signals. However, the committee notes recent inconsistencies with the Department of Defense's acquisition strategy for this type of air-launched/surface-launched missile capability. Furthermore, the current effort does not appear to be consistent with the budget documentation materials provided with the submission of the President's fiscal year 2014 budget to Congress, and the committee understands that the Department of Defense has revised the acquisition strategy since the President's budget submission. The committee recommends $136.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 64786N for offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development, and calls into question the Secretary's ability to execute $86.0 million of those funds in fiscal year 2014 for product-development activities prior to achieving a milestone A for the program. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit to the defense committees by September 30, 2013, the most recent OASuW Analysis of Alternatives completed by the Department of Defense. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the defense committees by September 30, 2013, a report that: (1) outlines the Secretary's near-, mid-, and long-term capability and acquisition roadmaps for maintaining air-launched and surface-launched offensive anti-surface warfare weapon capabilities within the Department of Defense; (2) describes capability gaps and shortfalls of the Navy regarding current and future OASuW capabilities; (3) any supporting analysis that have informed the Secretary's roadmap; (4) any on-going technology experimentation, engineering, product development, or modification efforts within the Department of Defense that would enhance the Secretary's ability to develop and field future OASuW capabilities, and an assessment of the maturity and associated risks of those technologies and efforts; and, (5) updated budget estimates and life-cycle funding estimates of the Department of Defense required to develop, engineer, manufacture, test, field and sustain new or modified air-launched and surface-launched OASuW missile capabilities in the planned roadmaps. The report may contain a classified annex. Precision Extended Range Munition Program The budget request contained $139.6 million in PE 26623M for Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms systems. Of this amount, the budget request contained $11.9 million for the development of the precision extended range munition (PERM) program. The committee notes that the Marine Corps is seeking to spend $84.5 million between fiscal years 2013-18 to develop and field the PERM, which is a global positioning system (GPS) guided 120mm mortar round with a threshold range of between 12- 16 kilometers. The committee also notes that the Army has already fielded a very similar GPS-guided 120mm mortar round, the XM-395 as part of its Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative. In addition, the committee is aware that the Army's XM-395 has already demonstrated a circular error probable of less than 10 meters, which is twice the threshold accuracy requirement for the PERM program. Since the Army has already fielded this round as an urgent materiel release, and many other more accurate joint fires are available to engage targets in the range of the PERM, the committee believes that the Marine Corps' PERM program is redundant, and that modifying or fielding the Army's existing XM-395 instead would ensure that Marines have precision mortar capability as soon as possible. The committee recommends $6.9 million, a decrease of $5.0 million, in PE 26623M for research and development of the PERM program. Prepositioned expeditionary assistance kits The committee notes that in 2011, the Marine Corps conducted an operational demonstration and joint capability technology demonstration (JCTD) with U.S. Southern Command to evaluate prepositioned expeditionary assistance kits (PEAK). The Marine Corps report on this evaluation stated the objective of the PEAK JCTD was to demonstrate and transition an array of capabilities for field distributed essential services including potable water, power, communications and situational awareness. The kits made maximum use of commercial, off-the-shelf technology renewable source power generation. The report concluded that the demonstration was a success and showed the potential of the PEAK kits to provide essential field services in an austere environment when operated by U.S. military personnel working with host nation forces. Based on this successful demonstration, the committee encourages the Marine Corps to consider initiation of a competitive development program for a PEAK kit that could allow expeditionary forces to provide effective and efficient operation beyond 72 hours after a disaster event. Service Life Extension of Navy Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research vessels The budget request contained $45.7 million in PE 62435N for the Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research program. For academic research, the Navy operates and maintains Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research (AGOR) vessels. Three of these vessels require a mid-life overhaul, partial funding for which was provided in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6). The committee notes that funding provided to date does not fully support all of the items that the Navy has determined are necessary to fully extend the life of these AGOR ships to 40-45 years. Accordingly, the committee recommends $63.7 million, an increase of $18.0 million, in PE 62435N for Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research, to procure the entirety of a mid- life overhaul. The committee notes that the inclusion of this authorization of appropriations is predicated on merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of section 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, or on competitive procedures. Unmanned Underwater Vehicle The budget request contained $852.9 million in PE 63561N for the Advanced Submarines System Development program. To maintain undersea dominance in maritime regions of significant economic and military importance to the United States, the Navy requires disruptive technologies that can be rapidly developed, demonstrated, evaluated, and fielded to counter expanding undersea capabilities by peer and near-peer maritime nations and to extend the Navy's reach and persistence. The committee is concerned that under the current acquisition plan, the Navy will not have the new technologies it needs to meet these requirements until after 2020. By accelerating the integration of Unmanned Undersea Vehicles and other autonomous undersea technologies and payloads into Undersea Warfare, it will expand the technology base and more rapidly provide warfighting options that are not currently achievable. Accordingly, the committee recommends $874.9, an increase of $22.0 million, in PE 63561N for Advanced Submarine Systems Development in order to support innovative development, demonstration, evaluation, and fielding of promising undersea technologies for the delivery of new and needed capability to the undersea domain. The committee notes that the inclusion of this authorization of appropriations is predicated on merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, or on competitive procedures. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force Overview The budget request contained $25.7 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, Air Force. The committee recommends $25.7 billion, an increase of $76.0 million to the budget request. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Adaptive engine technology development The committee is aware that the Air Force Research Lab has a significant demonstration project underway to mature technologies that combine the capabilities for high-speed thrust from fighter engines with the increased fuel efficiency of a long-distance, subsonic engine, known as the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program. Such efforts are necessary to provide needed capabilities for future air vehicles, as well as to maintain science and technology programs that will sustain the military aircraft engine industrial base until development of the next generation of aircraft begins. Furthermore, the committee is aware that in testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in 2012, Air Force officials stated that AETD is purely a technology maturation program and is not a new ``alternate engine'' program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. While the committee is aware that the performance specifications for the AETD engine are structured around propulsion requirements for the F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter, the AETD program is not limited to any particular form factor that would directly transition into an existing aircraft program. While the committee believes it is logical to incorporate technology derived from AETD for incorporation into the F-35, the committee does not expect AETD to result in a design for an entirely new engine for the F-35. The committee encourages the Air Force to continue to focus AETD on technology maturation and new approaches for significant fuel savings that will support future generations of aircraft engines. Aircraft engine component laser peening The budget request contained $139.4 million in PE 27268F for the aircraft engine component improvement program. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee noted that laser peening technology had the potential to save significant funds through the reduction of fatigue failure, stress corrosion cracking, and component shape corrections in a wide range of military equipment, including aircraft. The committee believes that the Air Force should consider use of aircraft engine component improvement program funds to examine the potential benefits of laser peening for F- 135 engine components in order to see if reliability could be improved and if engine life-cycle costs could be reduced. The committee recommends $139.4 million, the full amount requested, in PE 27268F for the aircraft engine component improvement program. F-35 aircraft program The budget request contained $1.9 billion in PEs 64800F, 64800N, and 64800M for development of the F-35 aircraft. The budget request also contained $5.5 billion in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force and Aircraft Procurement, Navy for procurement of 19 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 4 F-35Cs. The F-35 aircraft program is the largest acquisition program within the Department of Defense, with a current planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft for the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force to meet fifth generation U.S. fighter requirements. The committee continues to support the requirement for fifth generation fighter aircraft due to projected increases in the effectiveness and quantities of threat anti-aircraft ground systems and adversary aircraft and their associated air-to-air weapons. The committee notes that without advanced fifth generation aircraft that the United States may be significantly limited in its ability to project power in the future. The F-35 program is approximately 34 percent through its flight test program which is planned to be completed in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. The committee notes that the F-35 program executive officer believes the F-35 program is now on a realistic baseline with slow, but steady progress being made. The committee also notes that the F-35 program executive officer has identified the software development for the final development software block, known as block 3F, as an area with some risk remaining. At a hearing held by the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on April 17, 2013, the witness from Government Accountability Office also identified block 3F software as an area of risk because of its complexity. The committee shares this concern. Accordingly, elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish an independent team consisting of subject matter experts to review the development of F-35 software and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014. Global Positioning System Next Generation Operational Control System The budget request contained $383.5 million in PE 63423F for the Next Generation Operational Control System (OCX) for the Global Positioning System (GPS). GPS provides positioning, velocity, and timing to military and civilian users worldwide. OCX will replace the current Operational Control System, maintaining backwards compatibility with the existing satellite constellation and enabling new modernized capabilities onboard the newer satellites. In addition, OCX will provide command and control of new capabilities, such as increased anti-jamming resistance, associated with the new GPS III family of satellites. The committee recommends $383.5 million, the full amount of the request, in PE 63423F for the Next Generation Operational Control System program. Hypersonic test facilities The committee recognizes the importance that hypersonic technologies will play in meeting the defense needs of the future. As with any new technology, developing and maintaining the appropriate facility to conduct full-scale testing is a necessary precondition to effective technology development efforts. Thus, the committee supports a hypersonic program that develops the necessary workforce and testing facilities to support the research and ultimate deployment of a variety of hypersonic capabilities. The committee reiterates the concerns it raised about the state of hypersonic testing facilities in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as well as by the conferees in the conference report (H. Rept. 112-705) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The committee also awaits the results of the study on the ability of national test and evaluation capabilities to support maturation hypersonic technologies for future defense systems required by section 1071 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). Until such time as that report is delivered, the committee expects the Department of Defense to leverage existing capabilities within the Federal Government and not build new capabilities until a clear need has been established. In-space solar electric propulsion The committee believes that there may be enhanced utility for in-space solar electric propulsion (SEP) technology for national security space applications, especially as launch costs increase and weight requirements for satellites become more stringent. The committee believes that this technology may lead to reduced launch costs, enhanced payload capability, longer mission duration, and also provide risk mitigation redundancy. In particular, this technology proved valuable in mitigating some of the difficulties in getting the first Advanced Extremely High-Frequency payload to safely and successfully reach its intended orbit without reducing mission life for the payload, after unexpected launch problems caused technical challenges and nearly a year's delay. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to brief the congressional defense committees, the congressional intelligence committees, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, by December 15, 2013, on current and planned efforts to use SEP technology for national security space missions. In addition, the briefing should address the investments across the U.S. Government in further development of SEP technology as a possible means to save costs and extend satellite mission duration. Joint Space Operations Center Mission System The committee notes the importance of the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System (JMS) program in providing integrated, net-centric space situational awareness and command and control capabilities. The committee commends the Air Force on the significant advances it has made in fully deploying Increment 1 of JMS. Increment 1 provides: a service-oriented architecture with enhanced integration and display of space order of battle; improved high interest event tracking; dynamically configurable user-defined operating picture; and several web-based, space situational awareness tools to aid space operators in performing mission analysis. The committee recognizes the efforts of the Air Force to leverage existing or easily-modified Government and commercial applications as noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 112- 479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. However, the committee is concerned that the current schedule does not fully take advantage of the potential for incremental upgrades to on-ramp the appropriate existing capabilities in the most expeditious manner. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to certify that the acquisition strategy for the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System program fully incorporates existing, mature technology products, based on warfighter requirements, in order to replace the legacy system in the most expeditious manner, utilizing efficient testing and validation methods. The Secretary should submit the certification to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The committee supports the Air Force's efforts to provide increased and advanced space situational awareness capabilities to the Joint Space Operations Center to address current and future threats to our national space assets. Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System The committee notes that the joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) aircraft and sensors are rapidly aging and in need of multiple, costly upgrades in order to maintain operational JSTARS capability in the future. The committee believes that the Department of the Air Force understands the challenges of maintaining the JSTARS aircraft and sensors, and notes that it has conducted an analysis of alternatives (AOA) to evaluate potential replacement platforms for the aging E-8C JSTARS aircraft which has concluded that a modern business jet using a fourth generation sensor system would be the preferred JSTARS replacement alternative. The committee understands that the business jet solution would provide substantial future cost savings, improve capabilities with more advanced sensors, and is readily available in the near term. Unfortunately, the budget request for fiscal year 2014 did not include any funds for replacing the JSTARS aircraft or sensors, and the committee is concerned that the critical JSTARS mission may not be accomplished if the Department of the Air Force does not replace the JSTARS aircraft in the near term. Since the committee believes that the battle management command and control and ground moving target indicator missions performed by the Department of the Air Force JSTARS aircraft are critical to meet requirements of the National Military Strategy, the committee encourages the Department to begin a program to replace the JSTARS aircraft as soon as possible, but not later than in its budget request for fiscal year 2015. Liquid rocket engine technology The committee is pleased to learn of the combined U.S. Air Force and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) investment in rocket engine technologies being demonstrated under the Space Launch System Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction program. The existing Air Force Research Laboratory Hydrocarbon Boost technology program provides the underpinnings of this partnership between the Air Force and NASA on next generation advanced rocket booster technology. Moreover, this Air Force-NASA partnership is a model for maximizing limited taxpayer dollars in an austere fiscal environment. The committee commends the Air Force and NASA and encourages the Air Force and NASA to sustain investment in this synergistic approach to develop and demonstrate rocket propulsion technology. Additionally, the committee recommends the Air Force seek future opportunities to engage in cooperative efforts with NASA for the development of rocket propulsion systems. Metals Affordability Initiative The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapons systems. Of this amount, $2.7 million was requested for the Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI). The committee notes that the MAI is a public-private partnership that includes the entire domestic specialty aerospace metals industrial manufacturing base. Air Force participation with MAI has resulted in significant improvement in the manufacture of specialty metals for aerospace applications, including aluminum, beryllium, nickel-based superalloys and titanium. Because of the widespread uses and needs for the Department of Defense, the committee encourages the Air Force to engage with the other military departments and agencies to ensure they are able to leverage MAI for their specific needs. In addition, the committee encourages the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to examine the MAI partnership model to determine if it might be relevant for the newly established Industrial Base Sustainment Fund. The committee recommends $49.6 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63112F for the MAI program. Operationally Responsive Space The budget request contained no funds in PE 64857F for the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. The committee is disappointed with the Department's de facto proposal to terminate ORS, and is concerned that there is no enduring plan to address urgent military operational requirements for space support and reconstitution. The committee fully supports the ORS program to meet warfighter needs. This is the second straight year that the Department has proposed to terminate the ORS program and to transfer the remaining efforts to other existing space programs. The proposed termination is not in accordance with section 2273a of title 10, United States Code, which provides that ``the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, within budget program elements for space programs of the Department of Defense, that there is a separate, dedicated program element for operationally responsive space.'' The committee notes the Department's previous efforts to repeal the statutory requirement for ORS have been denied. Further, the committee recognizes there are urgent warfighter space needs that the ORS program may help address. For instance, in 2012, U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) required operationally critical and expedited service for satellite communications bandwidth to cover a wide geographic coverage. At the time, the Department assessed that the only option to meet USAFRICOM's needs was to obtain a lease through a Chinese company with significant ownership interest from the Chinese government. After a year elapsed, the lease was renewed because the Department failed to take other measures, such as engaging the ORS office to address USAFRICOM's urgent requirements. The committee notes that it has not received the detailed strategic plan, directed in the committee report (H. Rept. 112- 479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, regarding how the Air Force will implement the mission of the ORS program as laid out in section 2273a of title 10, United States Code. Current law states the mission of ORS is to: (1) contribute to the development of low-cost, rapid reaction payloads, space busses, space lift, and launch control capabilities, in order to fulfill joint military operational requirements for on-demand space support and reconstitution; and (2) coordinate and execute operationally responsive space efforts across the Department of Defense with respect to planning, acquisition, and operations. The plan should address the required funding for implementing this mission and how it will preserve this program's alternative approach to space acquisition. Therefore, the committee rejects the Department's de facto proposal to terminate the ORS program. Overhead Persistent Infrared processing and exploitation The budget request contained $352.5 million in PE 64441F for the Space-Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) program. Of this amount, $22.5 million was requested for data exploitation. The committee recognizes the tremendous value and significant investments in overhead persistent infrared (OPIR) systems. On March 19, 2013, the U.S. Air Force launched the second SBIRS satellite into geosynchronous orbit. This satellite joins other SBIRS assets currently in orbit, including another geosynchronous satellite and two hosted payloads in a highly elliptical orbit. The committee notes that the Department of Defense and the intelligence community have opportunities for additional exploitation of OPIR to support areas such as missile warning, missile defense, technical intelligence, and battlespace awareness. During the fiscal year 2014 budget request hearing for national security space activities, the Commander of Air Force Space Command was asked about SBIRS exploitation and responded that, ``We have not even scratched the surface, I think, of the potential that's there. We have another sensor that we haven't fully exploited yet as part of that satellite. We're doing a good job on the scanning sensor. The staring sensor, which has much better fidelity, we really haven't fully wrung out yet, because we've been so focused on getting the scanning sensor calibrated and certified.'' As an example, the committee believes that further data exploitation has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of the United States ballistic missile defense systems, particularly with the additional sensor data from the recent launch of the second SBIRS geosynchronous satellite. The committee remains concerned about the current schedule for full performance of SBIRS. Despite the first SBIRS geosynchronous satellite being launched on May 7, 2011, the system won't be fully utilized until fiscal year 2018. Full performance, which is driven by the ground segment schedule, includes final software tuning, algorithm integration, real- time data fusion, and automated tasking and cueing. The committee urges the Department to make further efforts to accelerate the schedule of the full performance of the SBIRS system. The committee recommends $42.5 million, an increase of $20.0 million, in PE 64441F for further data exploitation of the Space-Based Infrared Systems. Secure wireless networking applications The committee recognizes that the Department has a number of requirements across all of the military services for new secure, short-range, wireless networking technologies, which would have wide-ranging, multi-service applications. For example, forward deployed forces could reduce size, weight, power and cabling requirements for necessary communications equipment, as well as for on-board aircraft and vehicles. The committee is aware that the Air Force is pursuing this kind of technology through its Secure/Covert Wireless Network Program, and believes such technology could reduce operations and maintenance costs for the Government each year. The committee encourages the Air Force to look at opportunities to transition this kind of technology throughout the force as quickly as it becomes available, and to share lessons from this program with other services and agencies of the Department of Defense. Sense and avoid research for MQ-1 and MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft The budget request contained $128.3 million in PE 25219F for research, development, test and evaluation of MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). Of this amount, no funds were requested for research and development of sense and avoid capability. The committee notes that the Air Force intends to eventually base some amount of the overall fleet of MQ-1 and MQ-9 RPAs in the United States in the future, and that many of these aircraft will be operated by Air National Guard units with Title 32 responsibilities. In addition, the committee notes that operations of any such aircraft will be significantly limited by domestic Federal Aviation Administration rules. Specifically, the committee understands that absent any sense and avoid capability that MQ-1 and MQ-9 aircraft could be largely restricted to restricted military airspace, which would greatly limit their potential use in support of domestic authorities in the event of a natural disaster or other domestic emergency. As a result, the committee encourages the Air Force to examine options for a sense and avoid capability for MQ-1 and MQ-9 RPAs, and to include a sense and avoid research and development effort in future year budget requests. The committee recommends $128.3 million in PE 25219F, the full amount requested, for research, development, test and evaluation of MQ-9 RPAs. Space Fence The budget request contained $377.7 million in PE 64425F for Space Fence activities. The committee recognizes the importance of the U.S. Air Force Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Space Fence program. The existing Air Force Space Surveillance System is a very high frequency-band system developed in the 1960s to detect space objects in low earth orbit. This system is reaching its end-of- life and will be replaced with the Space Fence program. The committee is aware that the Space Fence will consist of up to two ground-based radars, which will provide timely detection of small space objects, primarily in low earth orbit. It will expand uncued detection and tracking capacity over the current system by an order of magnitude. The first Space Fence radar site is planned to be put on Kwajalein Island in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, with initial operational capability planned for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends $377.7 million, the full amount requested, in PE 64425F for Space Fence activities in order to support a full operational capability by 2020. Trusted autonomy for Unmanned Aerial Systems The committee notes that increasing congested airspace will require current and future unmanned aerial systems (UAS) of all sizes the ability to operate safely and effectively in close proximity to other unmanned, as well as manned aircraft. As national security operations increasingly require expanded use of small, affordable UAS, the committee is concerned that the military will continue to be constrained from training in the National Airspace System due to the lack of a validated, effective Airborne Sense and Avoid (ABSAA) capability. The committee is aware that the services have demonstrated some recent advances in technology in which flight testing has demonstrated a highly reliable ABSAA capability. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue pursuing such technology efforts, such as those carried out by the Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office, in order to allow for significantly expanded ABSAA operational testing. Unmanned Aerial Systems Development The committee continues to encourage investment for unmanned aerial system (UAS) acquisition and research and development. The committee notes that the U.S. military will continue to use UAS for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions, as well as weapons delivery platforms. The committee also understands that current UAS platforms are primarily used in permissive environments, however future operations may require UAS platforms to operate in non- permissive environments. The committee is aware these systems have improved situational awareness and reduced many of the emotional hazards inherent in air and ground combat, thus decreasing the likelihood of causing civilian noncombatant casualties. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a field hearing on April 23, 2013, that reviewed UAS modernization and technology investment. As a result of the hearing, the committee notes that the migration of UAS aircraft and sensor technology to the civilian sector could provide for greater competition, innovations in technology for both civilian and military missions, and could eventually decrease costs for both the government and private sectors. The committee also notes with concern that the budget request is procuring 234 fewer UAS than fiscal year 2013. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to pursue development of technologies which would support advances in UAS development to include developing UAS for use in non- permissive environments, and encourage the Secretary of the Air Force to work collaboratively with the Federal Aviation Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration to support the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System. Wide area surveillance strategy The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 35206 for development of airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained no funding for development of Gorgon Stare. Gorgon Stare is the Department of the Air Force's only operational persistent day and night wide-area motion imagery (WAMI) capability. The committee understands the Blue Devil experimental WAMI and multi-discipline system has been terminated. The committee notes that Gorgon Stare was initially fielded as a podded quick reaction WAMI capability in response to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum 106-08, to provide near real-time surveillance of city-sized areas. The committee further notes that the podded system approach allows for integration onto multiple aircraft types and the open systems architecture allows for insertion of multiple collection sensors. Accordingly, the committee believes that Gorgon Stare is the logical program to recapitalize the technologies, capabilities, and lessons learned from Blue Devil, and that the Air Force should evolve Gorgon Stare into an operational multi-discipline WAMI and near-vertical direction finding signals intelligence system leveraging Blue Devil ground processing, exploitation, and dissemination, as well as Gorgon Stare resources and lessons learned to achieve a persistent multi-discipline intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability. The committee also notes that the budget request for fiscal year 2013 included a projection of $112.4 million for further development of Gorgon Stare in fiscal year 2014. The termination of the Blue Devil system and no funds for Gorgon Stare in fiscal year 2014 raises a committee concern that the Department of the Air Force does not have a well-considered and funded plan to develop and field a fused multi-disciplined intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability to support Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Forces in the future. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate by February 14, 2014, on the strategy for developing a multi-discipline intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability with integrated wide area surveillance and near vertical direction finding signals intelligence capabilities. The committee recommends $37.8 million, the amount of the budget request, in PE 35206 for airborne reconnaissance systems. Wideband Global Satellite communications The budget request contained $38.4 million in PE 33600F for the Wideband Global Satellite (WGS) communications system. The committee notes the importance of the military satellite communications architecture, such as the operational WGS system. WGS provides flexible, high-capacity communications for the Department of Defense as well as other national and international partners. These critical communications may be susceptible to electromagnetic jamming from foreign adversaries. The committee notes that there may be low-risk upgrades that can address these emerging threats and encourages the Air Force to fully evaluate the best method(s) to protect this critical capability. The committee recommends $38.4 million, the full amount of the request, in PE 33600F for the Wideband Global Satellite communications system. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Overview The budget request contained $17.7 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends $18.1 billion, an increase of $472.1 million to the budget request. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Advanced sensor application program The committee is aware that the Department faces a number of irregular threats that are not well suited for the array of sensors developed and optimized for observing more conventional adversary threats. For example, narcotics trafficking and other smuggling in the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) area of responsibility poses a significant challenge for that combatant command, with global spillover effects. Recently, the Commander, U.S. Southern Command testified that through the efforts of USSOUTHCOM and regional partners, 152 metric tons of cocaine have been seized, representing over three billion dollars of potential revenue that could have supported transnational criminal organization, cartel violence in Mexico, and the destabilization of our Central American neighbors. The committee recognizes that such smuggling activities, fueled by the development of semi-submersible vehicles and safe havens in foreign sovereign territory unfriendly to the United States, can imperil the security of our homeland, as well as support global terrorism. The ability to counter these irregular threats, which require dedicated sensors, platforms and processing capability designed to counter those threats, is compounded by the effects of budget sequestration and fiscal austerity, which have reduced the deployment of aircraft to South America that would have been utilized to support counternarcotics missions in the region and train partner security forces. The committee believes that newly developed manned and unmanned air and surface platforms might be capable of employing innovative new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor systems focused on these target sets. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to examine smaller, more affordable platforms that could host or launch such systems to improve detection, tracking, targeting and engagement of irregular threats as part of the Advanced Sensor Application Program. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System The budget request contained $937.5 million in PE 63892C for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). The Aegis BMDS is the world's most proven naval missile defense system and the sea-based element of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System. Aegis BMD plays an active role in protecting the United States and U.S. deployed forces from enemy ballistic missile attack. The Aegis BMD system has been included in the Administration's Phased Adaptive Approach to European Defense and has undergone an extensive and successful testing regime. The budget request included funding to meet significant capability and test milestones related to the evolution of the Aegis Weapons System and the test and deployment of new missile defense capabilities, including Launch on Remote technology. The committee recommends $937.5 million, the full amount of the request, in PE 63892C for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. Request for multi-year procurement authority for Standard Missile-3 Block IB beginning in FY15 The committee notes the successful FTM-19 flight test on May 16, 2013, which again demonstrated the robust design and performance of the Standard Missile-3 Block IB missile. With over $4.0 billion programmed for this missile across the FYDP, the committee strongly encourages the Department to request multi-year procurement authority for SM-3 Block IB beginning in fiscal year 2015. The committee notes there could be savings in a multi-year procurement, such a contractual arrangement for SM-3 Block IB could yield savings equivalent to an entire additional year of production at current planned rates. The Department is directed to report to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2013, with a recommendation on whether SM-3 Block IB could use multi-year or advanced procurement authority beginning in fiscal year 2015. If such authorities are requested, an estimate of what cost savings would accrue shall be required. Service Life Extension Program for Standard Missile-3 Block IA missile interceptor The committee is aware that the United States has completed procurement of additional Standard Missile-3 block IA interceptors and is planning to begin procurement of the block IB interceptor, which has a more capable seeker than the IA interceptor. The committee is also aware that the United States has acquired a substantial inventory of block IA interceptors, many of which will soon begin to reach the end-of-design-life. The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is currently studying whether and how to conduct a service life extension program (SLEP) of the block IA interceptor and such a program could extend the lifetime of this substantial inventory of block IA missiles by approximately fifty percent. The committee believes such a SLEP should therefore be carefully studied and, if the results are promising, such a program should be promptly carried out. The committee believes that by carrying out this SLEP, MDA could come closer to meeting the requirements of the combatant commanders for missile interceptor inventory. Standard Missile-3 Block IB ballistic missile interceptor The committee is aware that the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) block IB program will be transitioning from development to production in the next calendar year, after several delays. The committee is eager that the combatant commanders receive the block IB missile, which will be more capable than the IA missile that is presently the mainstay of the Aegis ballistic missile defense system fleet. Combatant commanders continue to state their demand for additional assets in theater to support ballistic missile defense mission requirements. According to the Missile Defense Agency, it will procure 52 of these improved missile interceptors in fiscal year 2014, and 72 missiles per year each year through the fiscal year 2014 Future Years Defense Program. The committee supports this procurement. The committee is aware of the challenges moving to procurement and the challenges of significantly increasing delivery quantities. The committee expects to be informed of any challenges meeting the increased production rate. The committee also expects to be informed of the progress of the FTM-19, 21, and 22 tests, which are required to get the IB missile certified for full rate production. The committee is eager to see full rate production when these maritime flight test events are successfully completed. Airborne weapons layer The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting a cost benefit analysis to assess the feasibility of the airborne weapons layer concept, which would use modified missile interceptors or air- to-air missiles for certain missile defense missions early in a threat ballistic missile's flight profile. The committee is also aware that, in the committee reports (S. Rept. 112-196 and S. Rept. 112-077), the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate directed the Missile Defense Agency and the Air Force to conduct this study, and its results are now well overdue. The committee urges the Missile Defense Agency and the Air Force to quickly complete this study and brief the congressional defense committees on the results. The committee believes that an effective and affordable boost phase missile defense program would contribute to the goal of deploying an effective layered ballistic missile defense system. The committee notes the technical and cost challenges associated with boost phase missile defense, including those noted by the National Academy of Sciences in its study last year; the committee references the absence of a boost phase missile defense program of record elsewhere in this report. Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance Model 2 Radars The budget request contained $62.0 million in PE 63884C for Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) AN/TPY-2 Radars. The budget request would fund the acquisition of initial spares for the current radar units. The committee is aware that the AN/TPY-2 radar is among the most powerful sensors in the ballistic missile defense system sensor architecture. The radar is capable of being employed in a forward-based mode or as part of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. AN/TPY-2 radars are deployed in the Republic of Turkey, the State of Israel, Japan, and elsewhere to support the warfighter and are providing significant sensor coverage that contributes to regional and homeland missile defense. The committee is also aware that the fiscal year 2013 budget request reduced the procurement of the AN/TPY-2 radar from 17 to 11 units. However, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), funds were provided to procure a 12th AN/TPY-2 radar. The committee encourages the Missile Defense Agency to continue to examine the requirement from combatant commanders and the proper quantity of AN/TPY-2 radars that should be deployed in a forward-based mode and for THAAD battery deployments. The committee recommends $62.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63884C for BMDS AN/TPY-2 Radars. Ballistic Missile Defense Technology Missile defense directed energy application development The budget request contained $309.2 million in PE 63175C for Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; of this amount, $43.5 million is for Weapons Technology, Laser Development. The committee is aware that the budget request would support next-generation high-energy laser development, as well as would enable new kinetic interceptor technology. According to budget justification materials, the budget request would also enable the conduct of experiments using high-altitude, low-mach platforms, including the Phantom Eye unmanned aerial vehicle, to validate directed energy modeling. Further, the request would support laboratory concept development of Diode- Pumped Alkali Laser technology and other technologies. The committee supports this work and its potential for significant breakthroughs in missile defense sensor and ballistic missile kill technology. The committee is concerned that the focus of the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) work may have tilted too far from defeat and destruction of ballistic missiles, and recommends that the Missile Defense Agency not lose sight of these development options. The committee notes the recent test successes by the U.S. Army High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and the previous test successes of the Airborne Laser, while being aware of the technical and cost challenges of that system. The committee further encourages the Director, Missile Defense Agency to provide more detail on the division between directed energy sensor work and directed energy ballistic missile defeat and destruction work as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget submission. Additionally, the Director is encouraged to evaluate moving directed energy work out of the Ballistic Missile Defense Technology office and into MDA program offices geared towards delivery of capabilities to the warfighter. The committee recommends $43.5 million, the amount of the request, in PE 63175C for Weapons Technology, Laser Development. Solid Divert and Attitude Control System The budget request contained $309.2 million in PE 63175C for Ballistic Missile Defense Technology. Of this amount, $24.0 million was requested for the continued development, post SM-3 IIB termination, of an enhanced Solid Divert and Attitude Control System (SDACS). In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee expressed its concerns about the possibility of relying on a single provider of SDACS technology. The committee is pleased that, with the termination of the SM-3 IIB, the Missile Defense Agency is taking steps to ensure there is an additional opportunity for diversity in the industrial base for this critical technology. The committee recommends $24.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63175C for development of Solid Divert and Attitude Control System technology. Ballistic missile threat analysis The committee understands the global threat environment involving ballistic missiles is increasing, and the recent actions of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrate the continued need to fund ballistic missile intelligence. The National Air and Space Intelligence Center is the primary Department of Defense producer of foreign aerospace intelligence and is the Department's best resource on foreign long-range ballistic missiles. Likewise, the Missile and Space Intelligence Center is the primary intelligence component for the Department on the threat of short-range ballistic missiles to U.S. forces its allies, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, that identifies the ballistic missile threats to the United States, its allies, and its deployed forces, as well as the gaps in our understanding of those threats. The committee further directs the Director to include an explanation for how the Defense Intelligence Agency intends to close the gaps identified in the report. Common Kill Vehicle for missile defense The budget request contained $309.2 million in PE 63175C for Ballistic Missile Defense Technology. Of this amount, $70.0 million was requested for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology (CKVT) program. The committee is aware that approximately $20.0 million of the funds appropriated for the Standard Missile 3 block IIB program in fiscal year 2013 are to be redirected to the CKVT program by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The committee understands that MDA's intention for the CKVT program is to: enable the consolidation of the development of kill vehicles; develop a modular, open kill vehicle architecture; transition a more capable kill vehicle to the Ground-based Interceptor and the Standard Missile 3; and evolve to a multiple kill vehicle payload. The committee supports these developmental goals. The committee is also aware that, pursuant to section 225 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), the Missile Defense Agency is developing a plan for a next generation exo-atmospheric kill vehicle. Section 225 also requires the Director, Missile Defense Agency to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the plan. The committee finds that the budget justification material regarding the CKVT program was insufficient, lacked necessary details, and should be further revised to include a date for initial operating capability, as well as a plan to transition to a development program based on full and open competition in time to support current and future interceptor procurement. The committee directs the Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on such information by July 31, 2013, as well as for it to be included in the report required by section 225 of Public Law 112-239. In addition, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to determine an alternate program element (PE) in the fiscal year 2015 budget submission to fund the Common Kill Vehicle Technology and Capability Development program. It should balance the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system equities in a potential Common Kill Vehicle Technology and Capability Development program, as well as those possessed by the Aegis ballistic missile defense program. In addition, the committee recommends a new PE for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $70.0 million, in PE 63175C for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology program. Further, the committee recommends $70.0 million, an increase of $70.0 million, in a new PE for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology and Capability Development program. Conventional Prompt Global Strike The budget request contained $65.4 million in PE 64165D8Z for Conventional Prompt Global Strike Capability (CPGS) development. The fiscal year 2014 budget request is $45.0 million less than last year's budget request and nearly $135.0 million less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2013 in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6). The committee notes that in his statement before the committee on March 5, 2013, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), testified that, ``[t]oday, the only prompt global strike capability to engage potentially time-sensitive, fleeting targets continues to be ballistic missile systems armed with nuclear weapons. We continue to require a deployed conventional prompt strike capability to provide the President a range of flexible military options to address a small number of highest-value targets, including in an anti-access and area denial environment.'' The committee is concerned that the budget request does not provide sufficient resources to develop and field a capability for which the combatant commander has testified there exists a requirement. The committee is aware that given sequestration, potential fiscal year 2013 reprogramming actions, and other matters, the department has yet to be able to fully determine budget impacts to many of its programs. The committee encourages the Department to provide a more detailed plan for the fiscal year 2014 request for PE 64165D8Z, including a plan for acquiring CPGS capability with a specific date of initial operating capability and the date at which there is a likely to be a Material Development Decision. The committee notes that many of the technologies under consideration by the Department of Defense are dependent on acquisition decisions involving other programs that may not occur until the middle of the next decade or that depend on breakthroughs in low technology readiness level programs. The committee is aware, however, that there are near-term threats for which CPGS capabilities could be especially useful, especially with the proliferation of mobile ballistic missile capability, including involving regional actors, if it can be developed and deployed in an effective and affordable manner. The committee encourages the Department to consider what near- term CPGS capability should be considered to meet these near- term challenges and it expects to see that consideration reflected in the fiscal year 2015 budget request. The committee is interested to see the results of the upcoming second test of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which was successfully tested in 2012. The committee recommends $65.4 million in PE 64165D8Z for the Prompt Global Strike Capability Development. Defense Science Board recommendations on Deterrent Response Capabilities The committee is aware that the Defense Science Board (DSB) completed its report ``Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat'' in January 2013. As part of that review, the committee noted that the DSB made several observations relevant to U.S. deterrent response capabilities in the face of severe and/or catastrophic cyber attacks on the United States. First, the committee is aware that the DSB concluded that the severity of certain types of cyber threats added further reason for a non-nuclear conventional strike capability. The committee continues to support expeditious development of conventional prompt global strike capabilities, as well as the supporting doctrinal and concept development to guide potential employment, and states its views on conventional prompt global strike in another section of this report. In addition, the DSB observed that, ``[p]resumably one would characterize a catastrophic Tier V-VI adversary cyber attack on the United States as `extreme circumstances' in the public language of the 2010 NPR, so that is not precluded in the stated policy, but it is not explicitly mentioned.'' The committee encourages the Department to consider cyber in the Nation's deterrence doctrine, including better articulation of what circumstances might fall within the ``extreme circumstances'' language of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. Based on the findings of the DSB, the committee is concerned that the United States should make further progress in developing response options and capabilities to support a full-spectrum cyber deterrence strategy, including the potential leverage of both conventional and nuclear capabilities. Additionally, the committee awaits the response from the Department on their views of the DSB's findings and recommendations, as promised during the March 13, 2013, hearing with the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command. The committee encourages the Department to consider all of these concerns as they draft their response. Defense research in remote sensing The committee supports domestic university research in remote sensing including remote sensing systems, cutting edge remote sensing data analysis methodologies, and techniques that use remotely sensed data for a wide variety of applications relevant to the Defense community. Consistent with the National Academies report, ``Priorities for GEOINT Research at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency'', the committee encourages the Department of Defense to consider funding remote sensing research in areas such as sensor systems, phenomenology, analytical techniques, image processing, collection strategies or tasking, imagery science, polarimetry, and hyperspectral science. Detection and threat identification technologies The committee is aware that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency continues to have a strong partnership with each of the services as well as with U.S. Special Operations Command to develop and field technologies that reduce, counter and eliminate the threat of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive materials (CBRNE). The committee remains concerned about credible threats posed by state and non-state actors in their attempts to acquire and weaponize CBRNE materials for use against the United States and its allies. Therefore, the committee encourages the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to continue the development, demonstration and deployment of innovative and emerging detection and threat identification technologies to ensure prompt transition of validated capabilities to address national security requirements. The committee directs the Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by December 31, 2013, on their efforts to advance and make operational a light-weight, person-portable CBRNE detection and analysis device. Distributed Common Ground System enterprise The committee is aware that the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) is a family of systems fielded across the military departments and other partners to provide an integrated architecture for all intelligence systems. DCGS is the current program of record for intelligence analytic, processing and dissemination capabilities for tactical and operational users. The committee is also aware that the ``DCGS Enterprise,'' as the family of systems is known, has been under development and deployment for a number of years, and the cost, schedule and requirements continue to grow without keeping pace with the demands of the users or the current state of the art in technology. To better understand those challenges, the committee requested the Comptroller General of the United States to review the DCGS Enterprise. The review found that ``unlike a traditional weapon system acquisition, the DCGS Enterprise by its very nature has no clear end point and relies on a complex governance structure under a `community of the willing' approach. This governance structure has had some success . . . however, not all of the services have kept pace in developing their systems and implementing improved interoperability standards that are available.'' Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 1-year after the date of the enactment of this Act on the information sharing framework and implementation plan for the DCGS Enterprise. The report should include: (1) The framework, including clearly defined criteria and metrics, to assess progress and outcomes pertaining to the level and quality of information sharing taking place across the DCGS Enterprise and its effect on intelligence operations; (2) The applicability of this framework to non-DCGS Enterprise systems; (3) An implementation plan that defines the way forward for getting to the desired end state for the DCGS Enterprise and articulates how the military services will be held accountable for doing their part in acquiring the systems necessary to achieve the end state. The plan should include the overall requirements, technologies, acquisition strategies, time frames, and investments needed by each of the military services to complete development and fielding of DCGS capabilities. Electro Magnetic Rail Gun for Missile Defense The committee notes that the U.S. Navy has been conducting long-term research into electromagnetic railgun technology to support naval surface fire support missions. The committee is aware that pursuant to section 243 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), the Secretary of the Navy provided an unclassified and classified report on the development, future deployment, and operational challenges of this technology. The committee is also aware that the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition wrote in response to this reporting requirement that, ``[p]reliminary analysis shows that a tactical railgun . . . has the potential to provide lethal effectiveness . . . for antiship ballistic missile defense.'' The committee acknowledges significant challenges ahead in developing, integrating, and deploying such technology, as with many technology development programs. Additionally, the committee is aware that the Department has established a new effort within the Strategic Capabilities Office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to leverage the Navy's program to explore the development a land-based railgun. As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) for the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013, the committee is interested in the potential utility in accelerating some electromagnetic railgun efforts for land- based area defense. The committee finds these developments encouraging, and urges the Director, Missile Defense Agency to examine these activities in order to determine their potential application, if they can provide additional capability, to broader ballistic missile defense missions of the Missile Defense Agency. Enhancing participation at minority-serving universities and institutions The budget request contained $30.9 million in PE 61228D8Z for supporting the development of research and scientific capabilities, including scientific professionals, for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. The committee is encouraged to see that the Department of Defense (DOD) is firmly committed to vigorous efforts to enhance the capability of our nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI), as defined under title III and title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-329), to perform leading edge research supporting national security requirements. The committee is aware that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) issued guidance on December 2, 2011, calling for the re-invigoration of the relationship between the Department and the HBCU/MIs. As part of that guidance, the ASD(R&E) called on the components of the Department to: (1) Maintain statistics on success rates for HBCU/MIs under competitive funding opportunities; (2) Increase awareness of these institutions for participation in all DOD-sponsored activities; (3) Encourage use of Intergovernmental Personnel Act agreements or other personnel-detail mechanisms with HBCU/MIs to more effectively connect with their talent base; and (4) Ensure HBCU/MI facility are recruited to serve on scholarship, fellowship, and research review panels. The committee encourages the Department to socialize this guidance across the enterprise, and to collect the necessary supporting data to ensure adherence to this policy. The committee is also aware that there has been confusion over the current authorities related to the HBCU/MI program of the Department of Defense. The committee reiterates the current authority is intended to provide the basis for a program that recognizes the unique status and attributes of ``covered institutions,'' as defined in section 2362(e), title 10, United States Code. The committee is concerned that some organizations within the Department have incorrectly interpreted the new statutory basis for the program in section 2362(e), title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that the Department's approach to the HBCU/MI program should not include aspects of the program as it existed under any prior authority, including the use of any form of funding goal or required percentage of overall funding. In addition, the Department should not include HBCU/MIs when determining goals or accomplishments under the requirements of the Small Business Act (Public Law 95-507), as amended, regardless of any legacy coverage in regulations or local policies. The committee believes HBCUs/MIs should be treated as institutions of higher education and as a special subset of such institutions, not considered as small or small disadvantaged businesses. The committee applauds the Department's decision to move the HBCU/MI budget line into a basic research account. Such a move provides greater flexibility for the Department to carry out STEM activities across the continuum. The committee encourages the Department to evaluate and consider supporting established activities that foster the best and brightest underrepresented high school students into pursuing STEM fields that would support national security requirements. The committee recommends $35.9 million, an increase of $5.0 million, in PE 61228D8Z for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. Foreign directed energy threats to U.S. military systems The committee recognizes the importance of directed energy technology as a means to maintain an asymmetric operational and cost advantage over our adversaries. The committee, however, is aware that the United States is not the only nation which is pursuing this technology and is therefore concerned regarding the ability of the United States to maintain an advantage over potential adversaries should they employ similar technologies against U.S. forces. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on foreign directed energy threats and U.S. vulnerabilities to those threats. The briefing should consist of two sections. The first section should provide details regarding potential threats, current and projected, to U.S. military systems due to foreign directed energy weapons including high-energy lasers and high- power microwave systems. The Secretary of Defense should consult with the Director of National Intelligence regarding the information content of this section. The second section should discuss vulnerabilities of U.S. systems posed by foreign directed energy efforts, and the Department's initiatives to mitigate these vulnerabilities. The briefing should include a description of science and technology development efforts for directed energy countermeasures, as well a description of any technologies which are currently in use. The briefing should also address both tactical and strategic assets as well as efforts to protect U.S. personnel against directed energy attacks. The briefing should also identify any known technology gaps in directed energy countermeasures and any plans to address those gaps. Future missile defense sensor architectures The committee is aware of the decision by the Department of Defense to terminate the Precision Tracking Space System, which it addresses in another section of this report. The committee also discusses the terrestrial AN/TPY-2 radar system in another section of this report. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee also discussed the operational status of the Sea- based X-band radar as well as the employment of the Ground Based Radar Prototype (GBR-P) presently deployed at Kwajalein Atoll. The committee has been focused on the centrality of a robust missile defense sensor architecture in its oversight of budget requests for missile defense in previous fiscal years. The committee is therefore pleased that the Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), in consultation with U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), are engaged in a study to examine the near- and far-term direction of U.S. missile defense sensor architectures, including the role for terrestrial radar sensors, airborne sensors, and persistent overhead sensors. The committee believes consideration should be given for balancing the employment of scarce available resources, noting the availability of the SBX radar for potential stationary employment off the west coast and the GBR- P on the east coast. The committee welcomes the leadership of the Director, Missile Defense Agency, the Commanders of USSTRATCOM and USNORTHCOM in undertaking this study, especially as gaps have become clear against the North Korean and future Iranian ballistic missile threats. The committee expects to receive a briefing on the outcome of this study and to understand the implications for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015 and beyond. The committee expects to be supportive of closing the previously mentioned sensor gaps. Ground-based midcourse defense system The budget request contained $1.0 billion in PE 63882C for the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system. The budget request would provide for Capability Enhancement (CE) 2 Enhanced Kill Vehicle (EKV) Return to Intercept activities; interceptor reliability enhancements; sustainment of the weapons system; return to Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) deliveries, which were suspended after the intercept test failure of Flight Test GMD (FTG) 06 and 06-a; and, Missile Field (MF) 1 refurbishment. The committee states its views and concerns about the plan for MF-1 refurbishment elsewhere in this report. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee also recommends an increase of $107.0 million to support advance procurement of long-lead items (specifically, 14 booster motor sets) in fiscal year 2014. The committee supports the decision by the Director, Missile Defense Agency to procure additional GBIs after a successful intercept flight. The committee is aware that Controlled Test Vehicle (CTV) test 01--CTV-01--was successfully completed on January 26, 2013. The committee supports the CE-2 intercept test, FTG-06b, as a critical step after the two flight test failures in 2010, and notes that this test is currently scheduled for December 2013. The committee encourages the Director to take all appropriate steps to prevent a further slip in this test. The committee commends the investigation of the 2010 test failures and the rigorous return to flight plan. The committee awaits FTG-07 planned to occur in May 2013, which will be the first intercept test of the CE-1 EKV since 2008. The committee notes the Director, Missile Defense Agency is planning to undertake a pace of at least one intercept test per year of the GMD system, and supports this planned increased rate of testing. The committee agrees with this goal and believes this is the minimum level of testing required for the GMD system to ensure full confidence, including by the Commander, U.S. Northern Command in the homeland missile defense capability. The committee is also aware that in the March 15, 2013, announcement on the U.S. missile defense strategy, the Secretary of Defense stated the Department would procure 14 new GBIs at a rate of 2 per year starting in fiscal year 2016. The committee notes that this appears to be a low-rate procurement plan and unnecessarily expensive given a known quantity of missiles to be procured. The committee believes there is efficiency through long-lead procurement and other efficiencies of scale, especially in the event of a successful test of the CE-II interceptor in late calendar year 2013. The committee supports the Director's planned efforts to examine how to increase efficiencies of scale and reduce costs, and includes a provision elsewhere in this Act that would enable the Director to more cost-effectively procure these GBIs. The committee encourages plans by the Director, Missile Defense Agency and the Commander, U.S. Northern Command to consult and examine the appropriate mix of two- and three-stage GBIs for the additional procurements as it understands there are different and complementary capabilities of these two GBI configurations. The committee recommends $1.0 billion, the amount of the request, in PE 63882C for the ground-based midcourse defense system. East Coast missile defense site The budget request contained no funds for the design, engineering, or construction of an East Coast missile defense site, including for the conduct of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process as required by section 227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee believes such a site is critical to the defense of the United States. The committee is concerned that funding for the EIS process to implement section 227 is not included in the budget request, and notes that the Missile Defense Agency intends to treat it as an unfunded requirement. The committee also notes that section 227 does not require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to down-select to only a single site by the end of this year. The committee recommends $140.4 million in PE 63882C, for site activities related to the development and deployment of an East Coast missile defense site, as follows: $10.2 million for site activities; $25.0 million for site planning and design related to site concept and master plan development for design work; and $35.0 million for ground system development. The committee notes that remaining funds should be spent by the Director, Missile Defense Agency to accelerate site activities. Fort Greely Missile Field 1 The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 63882C to initiate the refurbishment, upgrade, and for other improvements to Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely, Alaska. The committee is pleased with the budget request, as it adheres to the recommendation made in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The committee is aware this refurbishment is required to fully implement the March 15, 2013, announcement by the Secretary of Defense to emplace an additional 14 Ground-based interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely. The committee encourages the Director, Missile Defense Agency, when planning and undertaking the refurbishment of the missile field, to ensure that no action is taken that would prevent or complicate any additional emplacements of GBIs at Fort Greely in the future given the unique emplacement of interceptors at that field at the present time. The committee expects that if the Director determines that additional resources are required in fiscal years 2014-15, to refurbish the missile field that he will communicate the same to the congressional defense committees. The committee recommends $82.0 million, the full amount of the request, in PE 63882C for refurbishment, upgrade, and other improvements to Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely. Two-stage Interceptor for Ground-based Midcourse Defense In the Administration's 2009 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the continued development of the two-stage GBI was considered a hedge against the advancing threat. The committee notes that a two-stage variant of the Ground-based interceptor provides significant additional homeland defense performance and robustness against emerging threat capabilities by improving the battle-space capability through shorter engagement times. The committee also understands the value of deploying a mixture of two-stage and three-stage GBIs to the existing GBI missile fields for enhanced homeland defense. The committee is concerned that the planned two-stage intercept flight test in 2014, FTG-08, will test a two-stage missile that cannot be operationally deployed. The committee directs the Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the committee prior to FTG-08 detailing the improvements necessary, cost and feasibility, to test a two-stage missile that can be operationally deployed. High-powered microwave applications The committee is aware the Department of Defense has been examining applications for use of high-powered microwave (HPM) systems to counter electronics and non-kinetically affect adversaries on the future battle ground. For example, the Air Force has been demonstrating a Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project through the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration, successfully completing that effort in fall of 2012. The committee is also aware that the Navy has explored applications for using high-powered microwave systems to combat the electronics in improvised explosive devices in order to pre-detonate those systems. The committee encourages the Department to continue investing in the development of both the capabilities for attack tools using HPM, as well as the operational concepts for how those systems might be employed. The committee recommends that the Department examine more closely such issues as: possible effects of HPM weapons on targets such as integrated air defense systems, sensors, battle management networks, and other high-value, electronics-based military systems; assess the funding needs to transition existing developmental HPM technologies to a cruise missile-based weapon, as well as development of new approaches and delivery mechanisms; and, estimates of the time required for development and deployment of near-term and longer-term capabilities. Highly integrated photonics The committee recognizes the importance of highly integrated photonics (HIP) technology for Department of Defense applications. For example, modern military aircraft can have miles of heavily shielded copper wire cables that connect a multitude of components, resulting in both increased weight and limited bandwidth capability. The committee believes that HIP technology has the potential to provide for next-generation network architectures and processing capabilities, while dramatically reducing life cycle costs. The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, in conjunction with the Naval Air Systems Command, has an initiative underway to further demonstrate HIP technology that facilitates building or upgrading military aircraft and other aerospace platforms with a fiber-optic networking infrastructure that will offer many capabilities well beyond those of currently used copper- and multi-mode-fiber-based technologies. The committee encourages the Department to continue pursuing sustained development of HIP across the future years defense plan. Human-computer interaction The committee understands that the application of emerging neuroscience techniques, such as the use of non-invasive brain measurement called functional near-infrared spectroscopy, are leading to a better understanding of human-computer interaction. The committee is aware that the use of such techniques to passively study the brain, coupled with new neuroergonomic and human factors research, have the potential to lead to better methods for training cyber operators that would reduce the human errors, improved input devices for machine control, and potential applications for using brain measurement as a means for future biometric identification. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue investing in basic research to further explore and expand the understanding of functional near-infrared spectroscopy techniques, and their applications for defense needs. Improving military medical innovation The committee commends the Department of Defense for its innovative medical research and development program, which supports a combination of private sector, academic and in-house initiatives. The committee believes that this foundation could be further improved by examining means to augment this base program with a self-sustaining, equity sharing mechanism to enable continued health care advancements despite decreasing federal budgets. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives within 180 days after the enactment of this Act on the feasibility of establishing a federally supported, self-sustaining investment entity to support military medical innovation. Individual equipment for female servicemembers The committee notes that in January 2013, the Secretary of Defense announced a new policy regarding the eligibility of female servicemembers to serve in certain combat positions in which they were previously prohibited. The committee is concerned that despite the reality of female servicemembers serving in combat for many years, the military services have been slow to field individual equipment that is properly sized, weighted, and designed for use by female servicemembers. The committee believes that it is important that the Department of Defense ensure that female servicemembers have the equipment and clothing tailored to the physical requirements of women in order to operate effectively and not be hampered by equipment that is ill-fitting, uncomfortable, and potentially harmful during operations in the field. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee noted that it is aware of the concerns expressed by female members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom that the current interceptor body armor system's design may not be as ergonomically effective for female soldiers. As a result, the committee directed the Secretary of the Army to conduct an assessment as to whether there is an operational need to tailor the interceptor body armor systems fielded to female servicemembers specifically for the physical requirements of women. The committee expects to receive this assessment in July 2013. The committee understands the Army has begun fielding improved outer tactical vests specifically designed for female servicemembers, and that the Army has created and tested 13 female-specific coat sizes and 13 female-specific trouser sizes through the Army Combat Uniform-Alternate program that it will begin fielding in May 2013. The committee commends the Army for taking these actions and expects similar actions by the other military services. Similar to the report referenced above, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committee by February 15, 2014, that details the Department's programs to develop and field individual equipment that is properly sized, weighted, and designed to accommodate its use by women across all of the military services. In particular, the report should include, but not be limited to, plans to provide a greater range of clothing sizes for women servicemembers, the potential utility of rucksack frames and other carrying equipment designed specifically for women, as well as the advisability and feasibility of providing all female servicemembers with female urinary diversion devices as part of their standard issued set of personal equipment. Inner-aural communications hearing protection capability development The committee is concerned that hearing loss continues to remain one of the most prevalent long-term injuries for military personnel. As such, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the current efforts of the Department of Defense in developing technology to reduce military service-related hearing loss. The committee understands this briefing is still being developed and looks forward to receiving it in July 2013. The committee believes that the military services should consider additional investment in such technology. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the service chiefs, to develop a comprehensive policy for hearing protection and hearing enhancement across the military services in order to: (1) ensure all members of the military services are equipped with communications equipment that does not interfere with or prohibit the use of hearing protection; (2) reduce impediments to operational readiness that derive from hearing loss; and (3) reduce the number of service- connected disabilities resulting from inadequate hearing protection. Iron Dome short-range rocket defense The budget request contained $220.3 million in PE 28866C for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system. The committee has supported the Iron Dome system since its inception. The committee is aware of the tremendous success of the Iron Dome system in defeating threat rockets fire at the State of Israel from the Gaza Strip in late 2012. The committee is aware that the Iron Dome system intercepted over 85 percent of the rockets launched from the Gaza Strip against defended areas in Israel, and is pleased with its success. The committee associates itself with the remarks of former- Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in December 2012 regarding the system: ``Iron Dome performed, I think it's fair to say, remarkably well during the recent escalation . . . Iron Dome does not start wars; it helps prevent wars.'' The committee recommends $220.3 million, the full amount requested, in PE 28866C for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system. The committee believes the Director, Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, should use up to 50 percent of this amount for production of Iron Dome components by U.S. industry in the United States to meet Israel's defense requirements consistent with each Nation's laws, regulations, and procedures. The committee believes co-production of parts and components can and should be done in a manner that will maximize interceptor and battery deliveries for Israeli defense needs. Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Systems The budget request contained $95.7 million in PE 63913C for Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs. Of this amount, $52.6 million was requested for the Israeli Upper Tier program known as Arrow 3; $10.6 million was requested for the Israeli Arrow Program; and, $32.5 million was requested for the Short- range Ballistic Missile Defense Program, also known as the David's Sling Weapons System. The committee is aware that the United States has no closer ally in the Middle East than the State of Israel. The committee is also aware that the threat of ballistic missile attack on Israel is rising. The committee believes this threat must be met with the unequivocal support of the United States. The committee recommends $268.7 million, an increase of $173.0 million, in PE 63913C for Israeli Cooperative missile defense programs, the same level recommended in fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends this increase be provided as follows: $117.2 million for the David's Sling; $22.1 million for the Arrow 3 program; and $33.7 million for the Israeli Arrow program. The committee recommends funding and policies regarding the Iron Dome system elsewhere in this report. Medical research information sharing The committee supports the breadth of medical research being conducted within the Department of Defense and the promising results of such research. However, the committee is concerned that compartmentalization of data, whether by military service or injury mechanism, may unnecessarily limit the efficacy of limited research dollars. History has shown that many medical breakthroughs, such as penicillin, are often the product of research in fields indirectly related to medicine. The committee believes that the emerging field of big data analytics could provide useful tools to support the development of new capabilities through greater exposure of data and research results. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to provide a briefing within 180 days after the date of enactment of the Act on how best to promote information sharing across the medical research community through the use of big data analytics, while preserving anonymity and privacy protection, and allowing patients, subjects, and researchers to opt-in or opt-out of specific research studies. The briefing should also address whether establishing a single Department- wide clearing house for medical research data would be an effective means for accomplishing this goal. Microscale liquid plasmas The committee recognizes the importance of systems to allow for the operation of defense electronics in harsh environmental conditions, which must be impervious to radiation or damaging electromagnetic pulses. The committee is encouraged with the advancements the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has made in this area working with non-thermal microscale liquid plasmas (MLP) in demonstrating the ability of these electronics and signal processing devices to withstand damaging electromagnetic pulses and operate in extreme pressure and radiation environments. The committee recognizes that MLP may have application in other areas, such as the development of novel plasma actuators for aerodynamic control to improve performance of high-speed fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft. The committee encourages DARPA to continue this research to provide applications that can be used on various platforms to protect our military hardware against extreme pressure and radiation. Missile defense cooperation with Japan The committee is aware that the United States has more than 20 international missile defense partners, plus the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Of these, few have undertaken a more cooperative missile defense program with the United States than the Government of Japan. This cooperation includes hosting missile defense radars, deploying Aegis ballistic missile defense sensor and shooter ships, and sharing the multi-billion dollar development of the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) IIA missile, which is planned to be deployed by 2018. Upon completion of this cooperative program, the SM-3 IIA will be the most sophisticated missile interceptor deployed on any country's ships, with the capability to engage many intermediate-range ballistic missile types. The committee was pleased when the Secretary of Defense announced on March 15, 2013, that, ``[w]ith the support of the Japanese Government, we are planning to deploy an additional radar in Japan.'' The committee is aware that this radar placement was in consideration for over a year. The committee considers it a testament to the strength of the U.S.-Japan alliance that the Government of Japan has agreed to host this second radar on its territory. The committee expects that with the addition of the second Army Navy/ Transportable Radar Surveillance-model 2 (AN/TPY-2) radar unit, the Missile Defense Agency and the Department of Defense will have an opportunity to examine how best to bore sight these two radars to ensure maximum support for the regional and homeland missile defense missions. The committee is encouraged by this virtually unparalleled cooperation and support from Japan. The committee would welcome more such U.S.-Japanese missile defense cooperation in the future. Additionally, the committee encourages Japan to consider the proposal articulated by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff to seek a ``collaborative, trilateral ballistic missile defense architecture.'' The committee believes such an architecture could redound to the benefit of the three allied states to provide additional defensive capabilities against shared regional threats, including the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Mitochondrial research The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has an interest in research related to mitochondrial disease and mitochondrial function. For example, the U.S. Army Research Office's life sciences program includes support for efforts that focus on mitochondrial regulation and biogenesis, and biomolecular power generation. Similarly, as the committee has previously noted, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that traumatic brain injury-related impairments may be the result of damage to human cell mitochondria and that an enhanced understanding of the functioning of post-injury mitochondria may help drive the development of therapeutic interventions that could delay or prevent additional impairment. The committee continues to encourage the Department to support mitochondrial research through its medical research activities in the various services. Modeling and simulation concurrency The committee is aware that modeling and simulation tools can provide powerful planning and training capabilities to expose our forces to the complexities and uncertainties of combat before ever leaving home station. The use of simulation training has yielded a military that is better trained, more capable, and more confident as compared to units that do not have access to modern simulation training devices. The committee believes that simulation training can be a cost effective means by which units can improve combat readiness, tactical decision-making skills and ultimately save lives. Furthermore, the committee believes that a key to the effectiveness of simulation training is ensuring that training devices maintain concurrency with the capabilities and features of their counterpart operational systems and platforms. The committee is aware that maintaining concurrency using traditional funding approaches remains challenging in the current fiscal environment and is likely to become more so in the future. To ensure the greatest efficiency and effectiveness in our military today, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to consider using its existing flexibility to utilize ``training as service'' contracting as one approach to support operational readiness and maintain system concurrency. The committee believes that the Department could meet the training challenges of the future in a fiscally austere environment by leveraging simulation training that is a combination of both Government owned and operated simulators, coupled with simulation training services provided by a academia and industry. Modeling and simulation grand challenges The committee recognizes the value of modeling and simulation (M&S) to a wide range of activities within the Department of Defense. The committee believes that the Department could do more to harness the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of industry, academia, and the organic research and engineering resources of the Department to facilitate progress in the state of the art for M&S. The committee recognizes that the issuance of grand challenges have been effective in other areas, such as the Grand, Urban and Balloon Challenges of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The committee encourages the Department to develop and promulgate a set of M&S Grand Challenges for the research community that would: (1) Support increased inter-agency coordination; (2) Improve efficiency and interoperability of specific M&S tools, as well as to replace, improve, or provide efficiencies to existing activities of the Department; (3) Eeinvigorate use of simulation-based acquisition as an enterprise-wide strategy, including by using modeling and simulation for performing analyses of alternatives for major defense acquisition programs; (4) Lower the operations and support costs of the Department; and (5) Support risk mitigation activities. National Defense Education Program The budget request contained $84.3 million in PE 61120D8Z for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP) for the purposes of attracting, engaging, and developing current and future generations of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent to benefit the Department of Defense. Of this amount, $48.7 million was requested for the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) program, $35.6 million was requested for the National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship (NSSEFF) program, but no funds were requested for pre-kindergarten-to-12th grade (PK-12) STEM educational programs. The committee cannot stress enough that the recruitment, retention and development of an experienced, technical workforce is a critical national security requirement for the Department of Defense and that these efforts must start at the earliest stages of the STEM pipeline. The committee also stresses that growth in STEM fields is important for the general economic health and competitiveness of the nation, but due to the special security requirements of Department of Defense employees, this need is especially acute. The committee understands that as the demand for a diverse, highly skilled scientific and technical military and civilian defense workforce grows, the Department will need to continue to invest in strengthening local defense communities by enhancing student engagement in STEM initiatives that support the Department's research areas. The committee understands that NDEP K-12: (1) Builds student interest in STEM fields and disciplines and in careers specific to the Department; (2) Develops defense-relevant science, engineering and mathematics skills; and (3) Provides a future talent pool to fulfill the Department's demand for highly skilled STEM professionals by increasing access to authentic STEM experiences. The committee recommends $89.3 million, an increase of $5.0 million, in PE 61120D8Z for the National Defense Education Program. Of these funds, the committee recommends $48.7 million, the requested amount for the SMART; $25.6 million for NSSEFF, a decrease of $10.0 million; and $15.0 million for PK- 12 programs, an increase of $15.0 million. Of the funds request for PK-12, the committee recommends the Department use some of the funds to carry out STEM activities that will support school districts with high concentrations of military dependent families. Such activities should include a focus on increasing teacher effectiveness as well as student achievement. Next generation Aegis missile--Standard Missile 3 block IIB The committee is aware that on March 15, 2013, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Administration would propose to restructure the Standard Missile (SM) 3 block IIB program in the budget request for fiscal year 2014. The Missile Defense Agency has made it clear that this decision was driven by congressional reductions in technology development in fiscal years 2012-13, as well as technical challenges related to the projected capability of the missile and related to sea-basing the prospective missile interceptor. The committee is also aware that the Government and its industry partners both made significant investments in the development of the SM-3 IIB missile. The committee believes that it would be imprudent and short-sighted to walk away from these investments and to leave no program of record for the continued improvement of the SM-3 system. The committee encourages the Missile Defense Agency to use these investments as much as possible to improve and inform the development of the Aegis ballistic missile defense system SM-3 IIA interceptor, planned to be fielded in fiscal year 2018, as well as a follow-on system. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by November 15, 2013, on the potential for a concept development program for leveraging the investments made in the SM-3 IIB program by the United States and industry to continue to improve the SM-3 IIA missile through an evolved or iterative variant, for example an SM-3 IIA+. Non-Lethal directed energy applications The committee reiterates its support for the expeditious development and fielding of non-lethal technologies and capabilities, which can not only limit civilian casualties in irregular warfare and contingency operations but have applicability across the full range of military operations. In particular, active denial technologies offer numerous opportunities for defusing crisis situations in volatile environments. The committee supports the findings of the Accountability Review Board, which concluded that ``the lack of non-lethal crowd control options . . . precluded a more vigorous defense'' of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya and which recommended that the State Department ``rapidly and routinely'' identify and procure ``additional options for non- lethal deterrents in high-risk, high-threats posts.'' However, the committee notes that the lack of a clearly defined policy regarding the deployment of directed energy technologies has been a contributing factor to the decision not to deploy systems such as the Active Denial System. Interim guidance issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy regarding the operational employment of directed energy weapons acknowledges the benefits of directed energy technology and supports its continued development, but stops short of authorizing the use of new directed energy weapons without undergoing a comprehensive review and approval process intended to ensure an acceptable risk of collateral damage and inadvertent casualties to personnel. The committee recognizes the importance of a thorough examination of these issues, however it is concerned that the acceptance criteria imposed in this process still appears to be ambiguous and ill-defined, and therefore may stifle the development of, and support for, promising technologies. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 90 days of the enactment of this Act which identifies the policy, technology, and acquisition issues that have impeded the development, fielding, and employment of active denial systems in operational theaters where U.S. forces are currently engaged; and clarifies the specific policy requirements that must be met before directed energy weapons may be employed in both counter-materiel and counter-personnel applications. Non-profit research institutions The committee is aware that non-profit research institutions are critical components of the research ecosystem, and offer tremendous capabilities to the research and development portfolios of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The committee is aware the Department is examining ways to better utilize their unique capabilities and expertise, especially in the area of transitioning innovation to commercialization. Additionally, the committee understands that the Department is evaluating how to better utilize the special authorities within the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations in order to better leverage the capabilities of the non-profit research community. The committee believes this is especially important in a time of fiscal austerity and uncertainty, and encourages the continued discussion between the Department and the non-profit research community. Open architecture systems The committee notes that under the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD/ATL) in 2009, the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Task Force chartered the UAS Common Segment (UCS) Working Group, which has developed a common, open and scalable reference architecture for control of unmanned aircraft systems. Despite this effort and past encouragement from Congress, the services have continued, in some cases, to procure proprietary and closed architecture unmanned systems and ground control segments resulting in higher costs, fragmented and disjointed operations, and reduced operational effectiveness. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and coordinating with the services to require all future UAS groups two through five ground control stations be compliant with the most recent Office of the Secretary of Defense UCS reference architecture. The committee also notes that both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and USD/ATL have identified an open systems approach as a potential enabler for increasing competition and reducing costs on major weapons system acquisition programs. GAO recently reported that an open systems approach is characterized as having a modular design with open standards for key interfaces. While the Department would reap the most benefits from adopting an open systems approach at the start of development, the committee further notes that both the GAO and USD/ATL believe that in certain circumstances, where appropriate, it may be more cost effective and efficient to convert proprietary systems to open systems even after they have been fielded. The committee believes that the Department of Defense has the potential to benefit from the use of an open systems approach for weapons systems acquisition programs. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014, that: (1) Assesses the costs and benefits of using an open systems approach for manned and unmanned aircraft acquisition programs; (2) Identifies the specific plan the Department of Defense will use for implementing an open systems approach for new manned and unmanned aircraft acquisition programs; (3) Assesses the costs and benefits of converting existing proprietary manned and unmanned systems to open systems; and (4) Recommends any implementing legislation for congressional consideration. The committee also directs the Comptroller General to study the use of best practices for using open systems in product development. The study should identify better ways of incorporating an open systems approach from the start of new acquisition programs, analyze challenges that the Department of Defense may have in implementing these practices in its weapons acquisition programs, and provide potential solutions to these challenges, including potential policy changes. The Comptroller General should provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services on the findings by February 3, 2014. Potential missile defense cooperation with the Republic of Korea The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Republic of Korea are conducting phased studies of ballistic missile defense architecture options for that country. The committee is encouraged by this effort as it represents an additional example of cooperation in missile defense development between the United States and its allies. As the phased studies come to a conclusion, the committee encourages the Government of South Korea to consider purchasing U.S. missile defense technology that could provide proven solutions to the ballistic missile challenges that it is confronting and allow interoperability between South Korea and the United States. Additionally, the committee encourages South Korea to think about the proposal of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff to seek a ``collaborative, trilateral ballistic missile defense architecture.'' The committee believes such an architecture could redound to the benefit of the three allied states to provide additional defensive capabilities against shared regional threats, including the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Precision Tracking Space System The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has proposed terminating the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The committee agrees with the Department's judgment that the termination is the appropriate action in view of the rising cost and acquisition uncertainties of this system, both prominent explanations for the committee's actions in the committee reports (H. Rept. 112-78 and H. Rept. 112-479) as well as in section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee views the termination of PTSS as an opportunity for the Department of Defense. The committee is aware that PTSS follows on the heels of the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) as a missile defense space sensor architecture that hasn't been operationally deployed. The committee believes that a persistent overhead sensor system is a must for the ballistic missile defense system. The committee notes the priority of improving discrimination, and is encouraged by the MDA plan for an Integrated Space Layer Study and the joint MDA-Strategic Command ``vision study'' initiated by the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, on which the committee provides further views elsewhere in this report. The committee expects to be briefed this summer upon the conclusion of the post-PTSS scoping study as well as to be kept informed of the progress and interim findings and conclusions of the Integrated Space Layer Study. The committee expects the Director to ensure that the taxpayer investments made in the PTSS system will not be lost or wasted and that the cutting edge sensor work being done on this system will be leveraged into a follow-on program that could be recommended by the aforementioned space sensor study. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require an analysis of alternatives on the Integrated Space Layer Study in order to ensure that future MDA plans do not follow PTSS and STSS into failure. Quantum information science The committee is aware that research into quantum scale effects offer great potential for the storage, processing and communication of information, including for a wide range of applications that include weak-signal sensing and imaging to quantum computing and cryptography. The committee recognizes that quantum information science offers potentially disruptive new technologies for national security needs, but that recent advances in quantum communications have resulted in some early commercial products. In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee directed a review of quantum computing research within the Department of Defense. This report indicated that in fiscal year 2010, the Department had an investment between $50.0 and 55.0 million per year, which represented 30-40 percent of the Federal investment in this area. Most of these projects were funded as single university investigator projects, but also included some Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives. The committee encourages the Department to sustain its investment in quantum information science research, especially in such areas as the development of novel quantum devices superconducting circuit technology for the purpose of quantum measurement and improving understanding of issues that are fundamental to quantum sensing and quantum computing. The committee believes that such efforts are needed to maintain the Nation's technological leadership internationally. Report on boost phase missile defense options Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes that it is aware that there is presently no boost phase missile defense program of record in the Ballistic Missile Defense System architecture planned by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The committee is aware that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the Airborne Laser were terminated in fiscal year 2009, though there were notable successes, as well as challenges, by both developmental programs. The committee notes that such an absence means the United States is currently not pursuing one of the three central layers of missile defense architecture. The committee is also aware of the findings of the National Academy of Sciences in its report, ``Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives,'' which concludes, by relying on its own ``notional data,'' that boost-phase defense ``could be technically possible in some instances but operationally and economically impractical for almost all missions.'' The committee is aware of the significant advantages, and the difficulties of intercepting a threat ballistic missile in the boost phase, including those articulated by the National Academy of Sciences report. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the the congressional defense committees by October 15, 2013, that assess the findings of the National Academy of Sciences study and the options that the Director believes the Missile Defense Agency should consider in an analysis of alternatives or other study that could inform a boost phase missile defense program as part of the budget request for fiscal year 2015. Report on HALT/HASS Testing of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and Components The committee continues to be concerned by issues of reliability in the design and development of critical ballistic missile defense (BMD) system components and subcomponents as well as the potential for counterfeit parts to enter into the missile defense supply chain. Effective utilization of modern methods and equipment for highly accelerated life testing and highly accelerated stress screening (HALT/HASS) during early design stages has been demonstrated to yield significant improvements in reliability and more effective product designs, as well as cost savings. Through modern HALT/BASS testing, key components and subcomponents are subjected to overstresses, revealing latent design flaws (including those based on the use of faulty or counterfeit parts) that can go undetected with legacy testing approaches. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency, to conduct an assessment of the value, feasibility, and cost of greater utilization of modern HALT / HASS testing equipment and processes to shorten design and development timelines, reduce system and component testing and lifecycle costs, and enhance reliability of critical missile defense systems and components. In addition, the assessment should consider whether and to what extent greater utilization of modern HALT/HASS testing equipment and processes could help address the growing problem of detecting and preventing the introduction of counterfeit parts into critical missile defense systems, components, and subcomponents. Additionally, based on the findings of this assessment, the Director should provide the committees his recommendations regarding use of HALT/HAS. The committee directs that the results of this assessment be briefed to the congressional defense committees by not later than January 15, 2014. Ribonucleic acid technology research The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense faces a significant challenge with infectious diseases, which hospitalize more service members each year than are wounded in combat. The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has initiated a program to address treatment for infectious diseases based on techniques utilizing ribonucleic acid (RNA). That program focuses on encoding an element of an antigen or antibody on an RNA molecule to initiate the desired immune response. The committee encourages the Department to continue this and similar research, and to look at opportunities to expand this research into new areas such as equipment that enable RNA target characterization, software development for in silico screening of molecule libraries against RNA targets, and assay development for in vitro high throughput screening and validation. Soft biometrics for non-cooperative identification of personnel The committee notes that the Department of Defense has developed and acquired biometric capabilities that rely primarily on fingerprint and iris recognition, but are increasingly including additional modalities such as facial recognition or identification of latent deoxyribonucleic acid material. The current generation of biometric identification devices is also primarily focused on cooperative sampling of target populations, which require samples to be taken by service members deployed in potentially dangerous environments. The committee understands that there are also additional ``soft'' biometrics, such as gait, keystroke, or analysis of body markings, which could also be useful in identifying specific individuals, and could be done from greater stand-off distances. The committee notes that some research has been conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory, as well as other civilian research agencies to better characterize the utility and operational challenges of such modalities, but that the current biometrics architecture does not yet integrate any of these capabilities. The committee encourages the Department to examine all biometric modalities as it develops its future biometrics architecture. Special operations technology development The Special Operations Technology Development program enables U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to conduct studies and develop laboratory prototypes for applied research and advanced technology development, as well as leverage other organizations' technology projects. Similarly, the Special Operations Advanced Technology Development program delivers emerging technologies into the hands of Special Operations Forces, through the rapid prototyping and advanced demonstrations of these new technologies in realistic operational environments. The committee believes that these programs are vital tools that develop and rapidly deliver special operations specific technology to support special operations forces (SOF) in emerging as well as existing requirements. The committee believes that these programs would benefit from a formalized collaboration between USSOCOM and trusted academia, which in turn would serve as a catalyst to advance the introduction of new technologies that would contribute to SOF mission areas. Standardization of directed energy weapon systems characterization The committee is aware of several research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs which pursue the development and eventual deployment of directed energy weapon systems. The committee understands the importance of the services and defense agencies' ability to leverage RDT&E investments whenever possible to maximize the mutual benefit of these investments. Therefore, the committee encourages the services and defense agencies to continue to work synergistically in the development of these systems whenever possible. However, the committee is concerned about the inconsistency of definition of system performance among the different programs which make comparison of technologies and identification of leveraging opportunities between programs difficult. System descriptors such as ``beam quality'' for laser systems have multiple definitions within the directed energy community at large, and are not directly comparable between different systems. Some descriptors may only be applicable to a limited subset of missions and therefore inhibit the extrapolation of system performance to other missions. The ability to perform such comparisons is vital in the assessment of the different laser technologies applicability for missions of national interest. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a common set of parameters to describe directed energy weapon system performance with standardized definitions to be employed on all Department of Defense directed energy programs. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, which provides the rationale behind directed energy weapon system performance definitions. Synthetic protein development The committee is aware that the U.S. Army's Walter Reed Institute of Research (WRAIR) has established a collaborative research and development agreement (CRADA) to examine a new biochemical process that would prevent bacteria from responding to their environment and becoming harmful. This new process relies upon use of a protein molecule as a roadblock or `switch' to disrupt the behaviors bacteria use to become virulent. The committee believes that this new discovery could have widespread implications to help reduce combat wound casualties caused by infection. The antimicrobial process has an added advantage over traditional antibiotics currently in use in that the switch mechanism makes it extremely difficult for bacteria to do an ``end run'' around the process as can happen with some traditional antibiotic-resistant microbes. The committee applauds WRAIR's efforts with this potentially life- saving research and expects the Secretary of Defense and the Department's medical research enterprise to fully support this important new therapeutic approach. Technology harvesting of the Medium Extended Air Defense System The committee is aware that one of the frequent justifications for completion of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) Proof of Concept (PoC) was the harvesting of specific technologies for the modernization of the Patriot air and missile defense system. For example, in a letter to the congressional defense committees from then- Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, on November 30, 2012, the Secretary stated, ``[t]he U.S. Army is already considering ways to link the knowledge gained from the tri-national MEADS PoC program to its future air and missile development plans.'' With the final funding of the MEADS PoC, the committee is anxious to learn what technologies will be harvested for Patriot modernization, at what date in the modernization program, and at what cost to take advantage of the significant U.S. taxpayer investment in PoC. The committee was disappointed to learn that the Army would not include this information in the report required by section 226 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee understands the Army is interested in evaluating potential technology harvesting as part of the assessment of the results of the upcoming FT-2 test, but it believes such evaluation is central to the intent of the requirement under section 226. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide an evaluation to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the completion of FT-2, or February 15, 2014, whichever comes later, of MEADS technology harvesting opportunities based on the report directed by section 226 of Public Law 112-239. This report should also include: 1) A review of current Army and joint requirements to which MEADS technology might be applied; 2) The Army's timeline for completion of an Analysis of Alternatives to these technologies; and 3) An overview of the Army's planned competitive milestones in the acquisition strategy. Tele-medicine applications for ophthalmic injury The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is developing capabilities that would provide telemedicine and remote physiological monitoring for casualty care of deployed forces. The committee recognizes that such telemedicine capabilities can provide useful reach-back support for complex injuries, especially for sensitive organs where combat medics and surgeons may not have in-depth specialty training, such as ophthalmic injuries. The committee encourages the Department to experiment with and examine ways to utilize emerging telemedicine capabilities to allow for consultation with outside experts or specialty institutions to provide soldiers on the battlefield with access to high quality, tertiary ophthalmic care for complex and difficult eye injuries. The committee believes that partnering with subject matter experts could provide direct, real-time consultation between geographically-dispersed military and civilian ophthalmologists for urgent, complex ophthalmic diagnostic and surgical problems, as well as allow conferencing for complicated but less urgent patient management decisions. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has deployed the first operational Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system battery to Guam for its defense from the North Korean threat. The committee is gratified to see this capability operationally deployed providing missile defense protection to U.S. warfighters and U.S. territory. The committee is also aware that the fiscal year 2013 budget request reduced the procurement of THAAD batteries from nine to six. The committee is not aware of any diminution of warfighter requirement for this capability. The committee encourages the Missile Defense Agency and the Missile Defense Executive Board to continually reexamine the availability of resources and the warfighter requirement for the THAAD system and to ensure future budget requests in future fiscal years seek to increase the number of THAAD batteries that will be procured by the United States. The committee also encourages the Missile Defense Agency, subject to the availability of resources, to ensure that THAAD interceptor procurement is matched and paced to the procurement and availability of THAAD batteries. The committee noted both of these concerns in 2012 as part of the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The committee commends the Department of Defense for its robust missile defense cooperation with the United Arab Emirates. The committee is aware that ongoing and prospective foreign military sales with the United Arab Emirates, including the THAAD system, will greatly expand the U.S.-allied interoperable missile defense architecture to deal with regional threats. At the same time, the sales will produce significant cost-savings to the United States for its THAAD program. Three dimensional integrated circuits The committee is aware that the pressure to place more functionality on increasingly smaller integrated circuits is a challenge the Department of Defense is faced with as it tried to place more processing power on smaller platforms, such as unmanned systems and signal new sensors. The committee is also aware that the development of three dimensional integrated circuits (3D ICs), which allow for functionality to be stacked onto circuits and provide both horizontal and vertical functionality, holds promise for defense applications. The committee is concerned that recent microelectronics strategies from the Department have not addressed the role 3D ICs might fill, nor the gaps that might exist in commercially developed 3D ICs and where Department of Defense investment may be needed.The committee encourages the Department to comprehensively evaluate the place 3D ICs might fit in the Department's overall microelectronics strategy to understand how they might best be used to the benefit of defense systems. U.S. Special Operations Command undersea systems strategy The undersea systems strategy of the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has been a subject of focus by the committee over the past several national defense authorization acts. The committee believes that the research and development phase has reached a point of stability, which validates the progress of USSOCOM and their communication with Congress in a joint endeavor to provide warfighters with unmatched clandestine maneuverability in denied maritime areas. Increased authorization from the congressional defense committees for fiscal year 2013 afforded additional resources for dry combat submersible development of a near-term prototype that will give USSOCOM new capability. The dry variant will afford increased range and alleviate the human factors that are unavoidable while operating wet submersibles in cold environments on a long-distance commute to an objective. It is the intent of this committee to continue supporting and tracking with great interest the progress of a dry variant capable of deploying from multiple platforms to include a submarine. Additionally, section 156 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) mandated reporting requirements for the Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program and continued coordination between USSOCOM and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. The committee looks forward to receiving these mandated reports and reaffirms the need for continued communication with the congressional defense committees to ensure programmatic success across the undersea systems enterprise and program. Vertical Lift Consortium The committee understands that the Vertical Lift Consortium (VLC) is an open and competitive forum that leverages all sectors of the vertical lift aircraft community to encourage teaming of innovative small business and non-traditional contractors with major defense firms and academia. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit a report to the congressional defense committees providing the status of the Department's engagement with the VLC on related technology requirements and development strategies for next-generation vertical lift aircraft. The committee notes that the required report was delivered to the congressional defense committees on May 13, 2013. The committee agrees with the Department's assessment that the VLC is an integral part of the future vertical lift initiative and supports VLC members continued opportunities to compete and participate in prototype technology projects for next generation vertical lift aircraft. The committee recognizes incremental improvements or upgrades to current Department rotorcraft will not fully meet future Joint service operational requirements. The committee supports the development of future vertical lift aircraft and encourages the Department to expand the prototyping program to include vertical lift aircraft. Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense Overview The budget request contained $186.3 million for operational test and evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $186.3 million, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 operational test and evaluation, Defense program are identified in division D of this Act. Items of Special Interest Assessment of the Army Distributed Common Ground System The committee shares numerous concerns related to the performance and program management of the Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) program. The committee has endeavored to better understand those concerns and find ways to integrate lessons learned to improve the DCGS-A program as it moves forward. The committee awaits the report required by section 923 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), as well as a review by the General Accountability Office. Elsewhere in this bill, the committee directs further actions to improve visibility into the DCGS enterprise, and updates in key areas of performance. The committee strives to continue improving its understanding and assessment of key attributes of DCGS-A, and therefore directs the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to review the DCGS-A program and submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 27, 2013. That report shall include the following: (1) An assessment of the ability of the system to synchronize data across separate locations around the world in disconnected, interrupted or low-bandwidth data environments, including use of cloud edge nodes, and to manage and enrich data collaboratively across the enterprise into a fused common operational picture; (2) An analysis of how the Tactical Entity Databases (TED) are synchronized; (3) An assessment of the system to meet the data interoperability standards set by the intelligence community. Furthermore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis office, to provide a briefing by October 18, 2013 providing an additional assessment of the DOT&E report. This report shall include an assessment of the results of the DOT&E report, including comments on any recommendations made; and an analysis of how the lessons learned from the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan were incorporated into DCGS-A, including the ability of the system to respond to joint urgent operational needs. Test and evaluation capabilities for electromagnetic pulse vulnerabilities The committee is aware that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), both man-made and naturally occurring, as well as high-powered microwave (HPM) systems poses a significant challenge to the assurance of critical Department of Defense missions and assets. The committee recognizes that adequate test and evaluation facilities and capabilities are needed to maintain the standards for individual systems, as well as the networking of systems and infrastructure of the Department. The committee is concerned that the Department has not adequately invested in the underlying infrastructure needed to support these test and evaluation capabilities, as well as the modeling and simulation tools required to support combatant commanders, war games, military exercises and other assessments. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Test Resource Management Center to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the test and evaluation capabilities to support identification and mitigation of EMP and HPM vulnerabilities to the Department. The briefing should include identification of the existing capabilities and their sustainment levels, as well as identification of any gaps in those capabilities. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations This section would authorize appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations Section 211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ground Combat Vehicle Engineering and Manufacturing Phase This section would prohibit the Army from obligating post- Milestone B funds for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program until the Secretary of the Army submits a report to the congressional defense committees. The committee supports the Army's need to modernize its ground forces equipment. The GCV is one of the Army's top priorities and will eventually replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The committee expects the Army to execute an acquisition strategy that meets the needs of the warfighter and minimizes the risk to the Government. The Army's recent acquisition strategy is to down select to one contractor at the beginning of the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) phase instead of funding two contractors until the end of the EMD. The committee notes that officials from the Government Accountability Office have testified before the committee on numerous occasions that weapon system programs that enter EMD too early without enough ``knowledge'' can pose a significant risk to the Government. ``Knowledge'' is defined as the combination of technology maturity, a thorough understand of requirements, and realistic cost estimates. The committee expects the Army to ensure that it has enough ``knowledge'' before it down selects to one contractor in order to minimize the cost, schedule, and performance risk to the Government and the taxpayer. Section 212--Limitation on Milestone A Activities for Unmanned Carrier- Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System Program This section would prohibit the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from approving a Milestone A technology development contract award for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program until 30 days after the Under Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the software and system engineering designs for the control system and connectivity segment and the aircraft carrier segment of the UCLASS system can achieve, at a low level of integration risk, successful compatibility and operability with the air vehicle segment planned for selection at Milestone A contract award. Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Air Force Logistics Transformation This section would restrict the obligation and expenditure of Air Force procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation funds for logistics information technology programs until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense committees a report on the modernization and update of Air Force logistics information technology systems following the cancellation of the expeditionary combat support system. Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defensive Cyberspace Operations of the Air Force This section would limit the funds the Air Force may obligate or expend for Defensive Cyberspace Operations in Program Element 0202088F to not more than 90 percent until a period of 30 days after the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report to the congressional defense committees detailing the Air Force's plan for sustainment of the Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence across the Future Years Defense Program. Section 215--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Precision Extended Range Munition Program This section would limit obligation of 50 percent of fiscal year 2014 funds for the precision extended range munition (PERM) program. This section would include a waiver for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics pending written certification to the congressional defense committees. Section 216--Limitation on the Availability of Funds for the Program Manager for Biometrics of the Department of Defense This section would restrict the obligation or expenditure of funds for fiscal year 2014 for research, development, test, and evaluation by the Department of Defense program manager for biometrics for future biometric architectures or systems to not more than 75 percent for a period of 30 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits a report to the congressional defense committees assessing the future program structure for biometrics oversight and execution and architectural requirements for biometrics enabling capability. Section 217--Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration Testing Requirement This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to demonstrate unmanned, autonomous aerial refueling testing and evaluation with the X-47B aircraft. Section 218--Long-Range Standoff Weapon Requirement This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a follow-on air-launched cruise missile to the AGM- 86 that achieves initial operating capability for both conventional and nuclear missions by not later than 2030 and is certified for internal carriage and employment for both conventional and nuclear missions on the next-generation long- range strike bomber by not later than 2034. Section 219--Review of Software Development for F-35 Aircraft This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish an independent team consisting of subject matter experts to review the development of software for the F-35 aircraft program, and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014. The committee continues to support the F-35 development and procurement program, and believes a software development review by the Department will ensure that the F-35 program remains on schedule to provide a fifth generation capability in support of our national security strategy. Section 220--Evaluation and Assessment of the Distributed Common Ground Station This section would require that beginning in fiscal year 2015, future budget submissions include separate project codes for each capability component within each program element for each service version of the distributed common ground station. Furthermore, this section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct an analysis of commercial link analysis tools that could be used to meet the requirements of each of the service versions of the Distributed Common Ground Station program; and if one or more commercial link analysis tools are found to meet the requirements of the program, the responsible service secretary shall initiate a request for proposals. Section 221--Requirement to Complete Individual Carbine Testing This section would require the Secretary of the Army to complete all required tests, user evaluations, and business case assessments for the individual carbine program and report those results to the congressional defense committees upon completion. Section 222--Establishment of Funding Line and Fielding Plan for Navy Laser Weapon System This section would ensure that future defense budgets submitted to Congress for fiscal years 2018-28 include a funding line and fielding plan for a Navy laser weapon system. In the event that the state of the technology does not warrant a program of record, the Secretary of the Navy can waive the requirements of this section by providing written justification for that decision. Section 223--Sense of Congress on Importance of Aligning Common Missile Compartment of Ohio-Class Replacement Program with the United Kingdom's Vanguard Successor Program This section would make a series of findings and express the sense of Congress regarding the importance of aligning the common missile compartment of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine program with the Vanguard-class successor program of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Polaris Sales Agreement of 1963 has been a cornerstone of the U.S. alliance with the United Kingdom for 50 years and has brought significant benefits to both parties. Under a 1982 extension of the agreement, the United Kingdom purchases the Trident missile system from the United States for use in its submarines. Both Nations will field the Trident II/D5 strategic weapon system in their respective next generation of submarines. These new submarines will share a common missile compartment that is currently being developing through a cost- shared program conducted by the Navy. In fiscal year 2013, the Navy delayed the Ohio-class replacement program by 2 years due to fiscal constraints, but decided to keep the common missile program on the original schedule to meet its obligation to provide the compartment to the United Kingdom in time for insertion into the Vanguard-class successor. The committee applauds this decision and encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy to continue to prioritize the common missile compartment such that it stays aligned with the Vanguard-successor program. The committee believes that keeping this common missile compartment program aligned with the Vanguard-successor program is critical to ensuring the United States fulfills its longstanding obligation to a crucial ally. Section 224--Sense of Congress on Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Missile Project This section would express the sense of Congress that the results of the counter-electronics high power microwave missile project should be considered as part of any analysis of alternatives for development of a high power microwave weapon, but could also be used as a near-term capability for combatant commanders should a requirement emerge. Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs Section 231--Prohibition on Use of Funds For MEADS Program This section would provide that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). This section would also provide that the Secretary of Defense may not carry out technology harvesting from the MEADS system until 120 days after the Secretary of the Army provides the congressional defense committees a report on matters related to Army requirements for MEADS technologies, and other matters. Section 232--Additional Missile Defense Site in the United States for Optimized Protection of the Homeland This section would require the Missile Defense Agency to construct and make operational in fiscal year 2018 an additional homeland missile defense site capable of protecting the homeland to deal more effectively with the long-range ballistic missile threat from the Middle East. This section would be carried out while continuing to meet the requirement to prepare environmental impact statements and a contingency plan under section 227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) for the missile defense sites in that section. This section would require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to Congress on such missile defense site, including an estimate of the funding to be required for construction and deployment. Section 233--Limitation on Removal of Missile Defense Equipment from East Asia This section would state that it is the policy of the United States that the missile defenses of the United States defend the United States, its allies, and deployed forces against a multitude of threats, including multiple regional actors. This section would also limit the use of funds to remove U.S. missile defense capabilities from East Asia until 180 days after the date that the President has certified that nuclear weapons and ballistic missile threats to U.S. allies have been verifiably eliminated, and, the President has consulted such allies. This section would provide that the President may waive such certification if he determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States and he provides an unclassified explanation, in writing, detailing the basis for his determination. This section would exclude Aegis ballistic missile defense equipped cruisers and destroyers from this requirement. Section 234--Improvements to Acquisition Accountability Reports on Ballistic Missile Defense System This section would amend section 225 of title 10, United States Code, to include a requirement that the Director, Missile Defense Agency include in the annual Ballistic Missile Defense System Accountability Report certain operation and support costs, and statements as to the quality estimate level of each cost estimate as well as the steps the Director will take to ensure these estimates reach the ``high-quality estimate'' level established by the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 235--Analysis of Alternatives for Successor to Precision Tracking Space System The section would strike section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) and replace it with an updated analysis of alternatives requirement to reflect the termination of the Precision Tracking Space System in the President's request for fiscal year 2014. The committee notes that this section would require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to consider the opinions of private industry in carrying out the analysis of alternatives. The committee considers this requirement to necessitate only listening to the input of industry members that have long-standing and proven experience in the often difficult world of space acquisitions. Section 236--Plan To Improve Organic Kill Assessment Capability of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System This section would require the Director, Missile Defense Agency and the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, in consultation with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to jointly develop options to achieve an organic kill assessment capability for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system by December 31, 2019, and a plan to deploy such capability in at least some of the upcoming acquisition of new Ground-based Interceptor missiles. This section would also require the Director and the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, in consultation with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to jointly develop a plan for an interim capability for improved hit assessment for the GMD system that can be integrated into near-term Enhanced Kill Vehicle upgrades and refurbishments. This section would require these plans be submitted to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2014. Section 237--Availability of Funds for Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense Program This section would authorize the obligation of $15.0 million for enhancing the capability for producing the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system in the United States, including for infrastructure, tooling, transferring data, special test equipment, and related components. Section 238--NATO and the Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense in Europe This section would require, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that the President shall consult with the North Atlantic Council and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on the funding of the Phased, Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe to establish a plan for NATO to provide at least 50 percent of the costs of operations and maintenance, and infrastructure, of Phase I of that system. This section would further require the President to use the NATO Military Common-Funded Resources process to seek at least 50 percent funding support of the costs for Phases II and III of that missile defense system. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense, if he determines it useful, to seek establishment by NATO of a common pool of Aegis Standard Missile 3 missile interceptors. Section 239--Sense of Congress on Procurement of Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle This section would state the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should not procure a Capability Enhancement II exoatmospheric kill vehicle for deployment until after the date on which a successful operational flight test has occurred, unless such procurement is for test assets or to maintain a warm line for the industrial base. Section 240--Sense of Congress on 30th Anniversary of the Strategic Defense Initiative This section would express the Sense of the Congress on the 30th Anniversary of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Subtitle D--Reports Section 251--Annual Comptroller General Report on the Amphibious Combat Vehicle Acquisition Program This section would require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an annual review of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle acquisition program and provide the results of the review to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, and annually thereafter through 2018. Section 252--Report on Strategy To Improve Body Armor This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a comprehensive research and development (R&D) strategy for achieving significant weight reductions for both hard and soft body armor components to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 125 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) required a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to generate a technical report on ways to lighten current body armor systems. The report and FFRDC analysis found that the only way to achieve significant reductions, 20 percent and higher, without sacrificing safety and survivability would be through robust, sustained R&D funding over a number of years that focuses on developing new materials, as well as pursuing a modular, tailorable approach to body armor systems. The committee expects the Secretary's strategy to include but not be limited to: (1) costs, schedules, and performance requirements for all solutions currently under development for body armor weight reduction, R&D funding profiles for these solutions; (2) solutions and materials currently under evaluation by the Department, the feasibility and technology readiness levels of these materials and solutions, resourcing strategy for future initiatives; (3) how the Department is considering a ``systems of system'' approach to include modular and tailorable solutions for weight reduction efforts; and (4) all courses of action being considered to coordinate weight reduction initiatives for body armor among the military services. Section 253--Report on Main Battle Tank Fuel Efficiency Initiative This section would require the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on an investment strategy to accelerate fuel efficiency improvements to the engine and transmission of the M1 Abrams tank. Section 254--Report on Powered Rail System This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that comprehensively reviews and compares powered rail systems for the M4 Carbine program. Subtitle E--Other Matters Section 261--Establishment of Cryptographic Modernization Review and Advisory Board This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a senior-level body, to be known as the Cryptographic Modernization Review and Advisory Board, to assess and advise the cryptographic modernization activities of the Department of Defense. Section 262--Clarification of Eligibility of a State to Participate in Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research This section would modify the eligibility requirements for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research to include states that are also eligible under section 113 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1862g). Section 263--Extension and Expansion of Mechanisms to Provide Funds for Defense Laboratories for Research and Development of Technologies for Military Missions This section would modify section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (10 U.S.C. 2358 note) by allowing funds for infrastructure revitalization projects to be available until expended. Use of such authority must be reported to the congressional defense committees with the total cost of the project before it commenced. Total cost of individual projects may not exceed $4,000,000. Funds under this authority may be accumulated only after the date of enactment of this Act and may be accumulated for not more than five years. This section would extend section 219 authority to September 2020. Section 264--Extension of Authority to Award Prizes for Advanced Technology Achievements This section would extend the authority of the Department of Defense to award prizes for advanced technology achievements until September 30, 2018. Section 265--Five-Year Extension of Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection Features During Research and Development of Certain Defense Systems The section would extend the pilot program established by section 243 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), as amended by section 252 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), from October 1, 2015, to October 1, 2020. Section 266--Briefing on Power and Energy Research Conducted at University Affiliated Research Centers This section would require the Secretary of Defense to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on power and energy research conducted at university affiliated research centers. TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW At a time when Air Force combat-coded squadrons are grounded; when Navy carrier strike group presence in the Middle East has been reduced; when Army collective training rotations above the company level have been cancelled; when depot-level and field-level maintenance have been deferred and reduced in all the military services; and when base operating services and facilities sustainment have been reduced, all due to the impacts of sequestration, the bill would authorize $174.6 billion for operation and maintenance, including additional funding for operational tempo, flying hour programs, facilities sustainment, corrosion prevention, control, and mitigation, depot maintenance, and joint and coalition exercises. Additionally, the bill would authorize $67.1 billion in operation and maintenance funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, with $4.2 billion in additional funding for depot- level maintenance, fuel costs, and equipment spares and reset. During the past 12 years, the Army--Active, Guard, and Reserve--has deployed more than 1.1 million soldiers to combat with more than 4,500 soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice. Another 32,000 soldiers have been wounded, 9,000 of whom require long-term care. In that time, soldiers have earned more than 14,000 awards for valor to include seven Medals of Honor and 22 Distinguished Service Crosses. After more than a decade of protracted counterinsurgency operations and cyclic combat operations in the Middle East, the Army must find a way to return to full-spectrum operations, reset and reconstitute the force, responsibly draw down operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and fully develop its role under the new Defense Strategic Guidance despite tighter budgets and the compounding challenges of sequestration, and with a smaller force structure. The Navy faced a $4.5 billion shortfall in its fiscal year 2013 operation and maintenance accounts which was further exacerbated by unanticipated bills resulting from rising fuel prices. In February, the Navy deferred deployment of the nuclear aircraft carrier the USS Truman to the Persian Gulf and reduced its carrier presence to 1.0. In March, the Navy cancelled five ship deployments and next-to-deploy forces are also being affected in that two carrier air wings have reduced monthly training to the ``tactical hard deck,'' the minimum level of training required to maintain basic air proficiency and the ability to safely operate the aircraft. As ship and aircraft maintenance availabilities are reduced or outright cancelled, the Navy will be challenged to reconstitute requirements in the very near future due to lack of capacity at its shipyards. Ultimately, this results in significantly shorter service life for the assets, particularly when coupled with the impacts of the sustained surge in recent years which has taxed both equipment and personnel at rates significantly higher than anticipated. The tenuous progress the Navy has made over the past two years to reverse degraded surface fleet material readiness threatens to be undone by sequestration. Despite slight improvements in Marine Corps readiness levels following the drawdown of forces in the Republic of Iraq and the ongoing drawdown from Afghanistan, the Marine Corps will be challenged to meet global commitments, reconstitute its force and equipment, and sustain high operational tempo as it downsizes to 182,000 personnel and faces a nearly $1.0 billion funding cut. The challenges will be compounded by the need to support new, important missions such as the forward deployment of a special Marine Air Ground Task Force in Spain to support U.S. Africa Command and the expansion of critical legacy missions such as the Marine Security Guard program slated to grow to protect an increasing number of embassies in high-risk areas around the globe. Air Force officials told the committee that ``allowing the Air Force to slip to a lower state of readiness, [thus] requiring a long buildup to regain full combat effectiveness, negates the essential strategic advantages of airpower and puts joint forces at risk.'' One-third of Air Force fighter and bomber forces are currently standing down, and more and more pilots are not ready or trained and qualified to meet operational mission requirements such as those on the Korean peninsula where the Air Force and Army work as critical partners to assure peace and stability. The operation and maintenance funding authorized by this title seeks to address many areas of concern for depleted force readiness levels and related high levels of assumed risk, and makes several requests of the Department of Defense to report on plans to achieve full-spectrum readiness. The bill attempts to address the readiness shortfalls exacerbated by sequestration and choices driven by what Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel described during the Department of Defense's fiscal year budget rollout as a necessary component of a ``comprehensive deficit reduction plan.'' ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Budget Request Adjustments Office of Economic Adjustment The budget request includes $371.6 million for the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to provide assistance to states and communities that are affected by Department of Defense changes, including the Department's Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) actions. Of these amounts, $273.3 million was requested for Guam civilian water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. The committee remains supportive of the Department of Defense requirements to provide support for civilian infrastructure funding on Guam. The infrastructure is needed to support and sustain the current and future military growth on Guam. The budget request includes $246.0 million for upgrades to the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Hagatna Wastewater Treatment Plant to full secondary treatment, as well as $19.8 million to address critical wastewater collection system deficiencies and $7.5 million for technical support and project development. The committee notes that the Fiscal Year 2013 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 113-6) eliminated authorization for transfer of $119.3 million in OEA funding, making the funding for fiscal year 2013 not executable. As a result, the Department of Defense was unable to make initial investments in the wastewater system, also making the full fiscal year 2014 request not executable. Accordingly, the committee recommends a funding level in fiscal year 2014 of $217.7 million, a reduction of $153.9 million for the Office of Economic Adjustment. Funding authorized shall include $119.3 million for civilian improvements on Guam, consisting of $55.0 million for phase 1 improvements at the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant, $51.4 million for water system distribution system repairs and replacements, and $12.9 million for a Regional Public Health Laboratory. Logistics and Sustainment Issues Air Force Fuel Leak Maintenance Efficiencies It is the committee's understanding that aircraft readiness is regularly challenged by fuel leaks and that current procedures for identifying and repairing these leaks is both costly and inefficient. Furthermore, the committee is aware that the Air Force Research Laboratory has undertaken an independent evaluation of alternative, commercially available technologies that yield more accurate, timely, and cost-saving results for identifying, sealing, curing and validating leak repairs. The committee is encouraged by the Air Force's pursuit of greater efficiencies in the fuel leak maintenance process and the promise it holds for achieving savings and a higher rate of aircraft readiness across the fleet. As such, the committee encourages the Air Force to fully implement approved commercially available technologies to reduce aircraft downtime caused by fuel leaks, and to increase life-cycle savings across the full-spectrum fuel leak detection and repair process. Anti-corrosion Protective Covers for Military Hardware The committee continues to push the Department of Defense to confront its hardware corrosion challenge. Corrosion remains the largest preventable cost to the U.S. military, a cost which exceeds $23.0 billion per year. Corrosion results in decreased readiness, increased manpower requirements, and significantly higher life-cycle sustainment costs. In the current budget environment, it is critical that the Department of Defense focus on affordable sustainment of its hardware. Failing to protect the Department of Defense's hardware from the preventable problem of corrosion leaves hardware susceptible to the damage and degradation associated with exposure to heat, dust, ultraviolet rays, and moisture. The committee encourages the military services to follow the lead of the Department of the Navy and set a comprehensive, service-wide strategy to mitigate corrosion that includes fielding more waterproof, breathable anti-corrosive cover technologies that have been shown to significantly reduce corrosion and have demonstrated effectiveness in overseas contingency operations and at units' home stations. The committee encourages the military services to incorporate commercially available capabilities in developing requirements for low-cost protective covers that provide protection from water and particulate intrusion; elimination of microclimates in covered objects; mold and mildew protection; ultraviolet ray resistance; flexure and handling ability in extreme climates; and durability. Army Logisticians The committee recognizes that the projection of power, the deterrence of threats, the response to crises, and the protection of strategic U.S. interests requires a robust set of logistics capabilities. The committee believes that the U.S. Army, in order to sustain its presence across vast distances, must be supported by a logistics infrastructure commensurate with the missions it undertakes. The committee also recognizes that logistics support is critical to currently deployed combat units and those which may be deployed in a future contingency. The committee believes that the United States cannot be allowed to lose the capacity to both surge and sustain military forces across considerable distances for extended periods of time, which requires a robust set of logistics capabilities. Comptroller General Littoral Combat System Sustainment Review The committee notes the critical nature of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the importance of the initial deployment of the USS Freedom to the Republic of Singapore to test and refine operational support and sustainment concepts. The LCS class takes a unique approach to maintenance which relies heavily on contractor-provided maintenance in contrast to other Navy ship classes, which typically use the Navy's organic capabilities and U.S. shipyards to provide maintenance. The Navy established an LCS Council to address major concerns raised by several Navy reports on problems with the LCS's manning, training, and maintenance concepts, among other issues. This council has developed a plan of action with milestones to bring high-level attention to resolving these issues as the LCS class is introduced into the surface combatant fleet. Given the central role of the LCS for the future of the surface fleet, the committee has concerns about the Navy's long-term sustainment plan. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to analyze and review: (1) Plans to collect and analyze data during the USS Freedom's Singapore deployment, as well as any mid- point or final reports of lessons learned from the deployment; (2) Projected costs associated with providing preventive and depot maintenance including, but not limited to, an analysis of the alternatives considered in the use of contractor fly-away maintenance teams and U.S. Government and commercial shipyards; (3) Progress on meeting targets established in the LCS plan of action and milestones; (4) Lifecycle cost estimates for the variants of the LCS and their associated mission modules compared with other Navy ship classes; and (5) Any other issue that the Comptroller General determines appropriate with respect to the sustainment of the LCS platform and its associated mission modules, including modifications and improvements to reduce long-term sustainment costs and improve efficiencies. The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide to the congressional defense committees a preliminary briefing by March 3, 2014, on the above factors, with a report or reports to follow by May 30, 2014. Continuous Technology Refreshment The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) provided expanded authority to the Department of Defense to foster use of technology-enhanced maintenance capabilities with Working Capital funds. The accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement (Committee Print 5) specifically discussed Continuous Technology Refreshment (CTR), which is a proven post-production sustainment acquisition strategy to acquire technologically improved replacement parts and to significantly reduce long- term ownership costs. The committee notes that the Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Command is projected to achieve $254.0 million in sustainment cost savings over a 10-year period on just a limited a set of legacy helicopter parts. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has been slow to implement robust CTR programs, to expand their use beyond this one Army command, and to take full advantage of the Working Capital authorities provided in law which have become much more important due to national budget pressures. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the congressional defense committees, not later than April 30, 2014, on the Department's Continuous Technology Refreshment initiatives for improving the quality and significantly lowering the cost of replacement parts for Department weapon systems. The briefing should address: (1) The guidance provided to the military services on the use of Working Capital authorities for technology- enabled maintenance capabilities; (2) Information on the results achieved to date from developing modern parts to replace obsolete legacy parts using CTR with the resulting associated estimated cost savings; and (3) The plans of each military department and appropriate Defense agencies to develop and implement CTR acquisition strategies in fiscal year 2014 for obsolete parts most likely to achieve significant cost savings. Defense Logistics Agency Roles and Missions Assessment The committee is concerned that the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission process may have placed the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) in roles and assigned missions outside its core competencies which may be resulting in suboptimal support of its customers. In particular, the committee is concerned about the operational and readiness impacts to customers of DLA's continued challenges in effectively managing the supply chain. The committee notes that supply chain management, supply inventories, materiel distribution, and asset visibility, in particular, continue to be ``high risk'' areas within the Department of Defense, according the 2013 Government Accountability Office's High Risk Report. While the committee notes the significant progress DLA has made in reducing excess inventory and improving its business processes, the committee has been made aware of persistent challenges in the timely provision of specialized, low-quantity parts and supply chain management, which the committee believes could be a result of a misalignment of roles and missions. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the roles and missions of the DLA. The assessment may, at the election of the Secretary, be conducted by a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) or an independent, non-governmental institute which is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, and has recognized credentials and expertise in national security and military affairs appropriate for the assessment. The assessment should include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) An examination of the roles and missions currently assigned to the DLA; (2) An assessment of the DLA's ability (resources, structure, workforce, etc.) to adequately accomplish those roles and missions outside of DLA-Energy; (3) Identification of any DLA functions, roles, missions, activities, or initiatives that could be more efficiently performed by the military departments or other defense agencies; (4) A transition plan for any activities recommended for migration; (5) An assessment of functions, roles, missions, activities, or initiatives that could be most efficiently performed by DLA that are currently performed by other military departments or defense agencies; and (6) Any other recommendations on ways the DLA could further improve its support to customers, management practices, demand forecasting, its use of modeling to determine the optimal number and inventory management. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to deliver this assessment in conjunction with the annual budget submission for fiscal year 2015. Further, to enable the committee to provide the necessary oversight, the committee directs the Department to brief the congressional defense committees on the strategy within 30 days of its delivery to Congress. Disposition of Retrograded Equipment from Afghanistan As the Department continues the drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, the committee is aware of continued interest by local communities, law enforcement agencies, and other eligible domestic entities in the reuse of excess defense articles. The committee supports close coordination between the Department and the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property in connecting interested eligible domestic entities with surplus military equipment at no cost to the government. However, in conducting oversight on the progress of drawdown in Afghanistan, the committee believes that the Department can do more to provide real-time information on the availability, location, and condition of surplus materials available to interested eligible entities. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees no later than October 1, 2013, on the Department's plans to make excess defense articles from the drawdown in Afghanistan available to eligible domestic entities at no cost to the government. This briefing shall specifically include planned improvements to real-time information sharing with interested eligible parties regarding what equipment might be available, when, where, and in what condition. F-35 Sustainment Plan The committee recognizes the importance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program to our national defense. This advanced fighter aircraft will replace a variety of existing aircraft in the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. In 2012, the Department of Defense reported that sustainment of the F-35 aircraft fleet could cost more than $1.0 trillion (in then-year dollars) over the planned 30-year service life. However, the Department has said that it is actively engaged in evaluating opportunities to reduce life-cycle sustainment costs based on concerns about the affordability of the program. Past experience has shown that decisions made during the development of a weapon system can influence, positively or negatively, the cost of sustaining that system over its life cycle. Considering the magnitude of the estimated sustainment costs for the F-35, the committee is concerned about whether the Department has established comprehensive sustainment plans, developed appropriate cost analyses, and identified potential options to control and/or minimize future sustainment costs for the aircraft program. Given the fiscal uncertainties facing the Department and growing concerns related to the affordability of the F-35's long-term sustainment costs, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Department's ongoing F-35 sustainment planning efforts. This review should include: (1) The extent to which the Department has developed comprehensive sustainment plans, including a Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan, and regularly updated these plans to reflect program changes; (2) The extent to which the Department has utilized appropriate analyses of operating and support costs, including a business case analysis, to evaluate the full range of sustainment options available for the F- 35 program; (3) The extent to which the Department is pursuing additional opportunities, such as competition for sustainment contracts, to reduce long-term sustainment costs; and (4) Any other issues that the Comptroller General determines appropriate with respect to the sustainment of the F-35. The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a preliminary briefing by March 14, 2014, on the above factors, with a report or reports to follow. Item Unique Identification and Automated Information and Data Capture The committee is aware that numerous Government Accountability Office audits have found that significant improvements are needed in the tracking, management, and accountability for assets deployed across the Department of Defense. The committee believes that Item Unique Identification (IUID), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), biometrics, and other automated information and data capture (AIDC) technologies have the potential for realizing significant cost savings and improving management of defense equipment and supplies throughout their life cycles. Further, the committee judges that the use of the implementing technologies can secure supply-item data for logistics and engineering analysis; improve item intelligence for operational warfighter planning; upgrade access to historical item data across life cycles; lower total life cycle cost of items acquired and managed; save taxpayer funding through improved productivity, efficiency, maintenance, and logistical planning; and combat the growing problem of counterfeit parts in the military supply chain. The committee understands that in 2003, the Department of Defense initiated the IUID initiative, which requires the marking and tracking of assets deployed throughout the Armed Forces or in the possession of Department contractors, but implementation has been fragmented, incomplete, and not enforced. The committee believes the Department of Defense must improve its efforts to capture meaningful data and optimize the benefits of Item Unique Identification and other AIDC initiatives to include the investment of sufficient resources and continued training and leadership. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to promulgate rules and regulations sufficient to enforce compliance with section 252.211-7003 (entitled ``Item Identification and Valuation'') of the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, on Item Unique Identification, which requires unique identification for all delivered items meeting the standards set forth in the regulation. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by January 31, 2014, on current compliance rates with section 252.211-7003 of the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, measures being taken to improve compliance, and a projected date for full compliance. Laser Peening Technology In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee noted that ``laser peening technology, a surface enhancement processing treatment for metals, has achieved considerable success in commercial aerospace and power- generation applications, reducing costs by enabling improvements in the metal structure and mitigating high-cycle fatigue failures of a system, thus extending the system's lifetime.'' In that report the committee also encouraged the Department of Defense ``to examine the potential cost savings that may be derived from adopting this technology broadly across the military services, particularly for use on engines, aircraft structures, land vehicles and weapon systems.'' However, the committee is concerned that some military departments have not fully explored the use of such technologies to reduce costs associated with problems of fatigue failure, stress corrosion cracking, and component shape corrections. The committee further encourages the Department to explore such technologies for use in aircraft engines to slow the rate of replacement of highly stressed components and parts. Logistical Support to the Department of Defense The committee is concerned with the current downsizing at the General Services Administration's (GSA) Eastern Distribution Center (EDC) and its impact on military readiness. As described by the General Services Administration (GSA), the EDC ``provides an integrated pipeline that sustains GSA's armed forces and civilian customers around the world with innovative and tailored logistics services that are ever improving in terms of cost, timeliness, and relative value.'' It has been estimated that 75 percent of shipments from the Eastern Distribution Center are for Department of Defense purposes. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to examine the important work at this facility to ensure the EDC maintains its ability to sustain the readiness of our Armed Forces. Long-term Investment Plan for Land, Facilities, and Equipment of Former Guam Ship Repair Facility In testimony before the committee in April 2013, the Chief of Naval Operations highlighted the importance of a ship repair capability on Guam to support increased naval operations in the western Pacific region as key to the national security strategy. The committee understands that maintaining a depot- level ship repair capability on Guam will require significant investment. The committee is concerned that the Navy has been unable to provide a detailed investment plan for upgrading and modernizing the former Navy ship repair facility on Guam. The committee notes that a failed long-term lease approach would have required private industry to provide capital improvements estimated at nearly $150.0 million. Therefore, the committee anticipates that a similar level of investment would be needed by the Navy to provide the necessary depot-level repair capability for the western Pacific region. The committee believes that improvements to these facilities will be critical to ensuring the long-term viability of a depot-level ship repair capability in the western Pacific. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Chief of Naval Operations, to submit to the congressional defense committees no later than December 31, 2013, a long-term investment plan for the land, facilities, and equipment of the former Guam ship repair facility. The plan should include: (1) A description of how the Secretary of the Navy will prioritize the improvements made to land, facilities, and equipment under the plan, including an explanation and estimated cost and schedule for each such improvement; and (2) An identification of the accounts from which funds will be used for such improvements. Navy Fleet Readiness The committee is pleased with the U.S. Navy's progress in reversing the years of degraded surface fleet readiness trends. The Navy has made progress in documenting the existing shortfalls and maintenance requirements through its development of Class Maintenance Plans and Technical Foundation Papers to identify specific requirements by hull. However, to supplement its organic capability, the committee notes the Navy's success has been partially reliant on external support to address its knowledge gaps and prepare the assets for operations. Engineering Readiness Assessment Teams (ERATs), manned in part by retired Navy master chiefs, have complemented the organic capacity with their unique expertise to assist ships' crews in best practices, safe operation of ship systems, and identification, documentation, and repair of failed equipment and broken systems. With decades of experience, the teams' goal is to improve readiness by providing younger sailors with critical institutional knowledge, mentorship, technical help, quality control, and environmental program compliance. The committee recognizes the importance of this relationship and the invaluable contribution. However, the committee encourages the Navy to institutionalize these lessons learned in its training process. In light of constrained fiscal resources, the committee recognizes the Navy could potentially lose traction on the success it has achieved to date, due to the impact of a sustained surge and lack of time and resources to support required maintenance. Therefore, the committee encourages the Navy to continue to provide the necessary funding and expertise, through a complement of organic and private sector capacity, to sustain the progress in surface ship readiness, reduce lifecycle maintenance costs, and improve warfighting readiness at lower total ownership cost to reach expected service life. Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul The committee notes that the Navy has indicated that ``funding requirements for propeller repair and overhauls are estimated based on historical and current year expenditures'' and that ``sustaining out-year funding for Ready for Issue (RFI) spare propellers at required levels would help maintain inventory and limit risk to readiness.'' The Navy has indicated that lower-than-targeted levels of healthy RFI propellers pose ``medium to high risk to attack and strategic submarine operational readiness.'' The committee further notes that the Navy continues to request partial funding to support this effort in the Overseas Contingency Operations account. The committee encourages the Navy to identify the necessary funds to ensure an adequate supply of ready propellers when projecting Future Years Defense Program base budget requests. Readiness Issues Advanced Situational Awareness Training The committee understands that the Army has successfully incorporated a module to train deploying units to detect changes in human behavior through Advanced Situational Awareness Training (ASAT). The committee commends the Army for its leadership in developing and broadening soldier training in this area and is encouraged by the reported benefits of increased situational awareness, improved effectiveness in positive identification of threats, reduced time to gain a decisive advantage, enhanced use of existing optical equipment, and reduction of civilian casualties. The committee believes this type of training imparts enduring and important skills at both the individual and unit level, and represents a cost- effective method for training soldiers across a broad range of military operations. Combat Training Centers The committee recognizes the important role that national combat training centers play in producing combat-ready forces. The committee further recognizes that these centers provide an important resource for other Government agencies, allies, and both conventional and special operations forces. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of Defense to closely examine how such centers can serve as a model for future operational readiness and training, and work to ensure their long-term viability by providing appropriate resources and adequate staffing. Comptroller General Encroachment Study The committee is concerned about military readiness and preserving the Department of Defense's ability to train and operate in the air, at sea, and on land. U.S. military force readiness is directly dependent on many factors, including realistic training for a variety of missions in myriad environments worldwide. An important component of military readiness is timely and routine access to training ranges that permit realistic training without hindrance from activities that can limit access to, encroach upon, or at times compromise security of the ranges. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) previously reported in ``Military Training: Compliance With Environmental Laws Affects Some Training Activities, but DOD Has Not Made a Sound Business Case for Additional Environmental Exemptions'' (GAO-08-407) that the requirement to comply with environmental laws has affected some training activities and how they are conducted. Specifically, the GAO found some instances where training activities were cancelled, postponed, or modified in order to address environmental requirements. While the GAO also reported at the time that readiness data did not indicate an impact on readiness from these instances, it also reported that the Department was developing systems to measure the impact. Limitations on access to training ranges and encroachment of national security interests can take many forms: (1) Environmental limitations, both land- and sea- based, involve endangered species that may be present through nesting or migration at or near training ranges. (2) Urban encroachment can consist of commercial or residential construction in the civilian economy in proximity to or adjacent to military bases. (3) Encroachment from energy-generation projects can occur both adjacent to installations and also in the Outer Continental Shelf, potentially affecting the military's ability to train and operate both on installations and at sea. The installation of renewable energy-generation facilities, including wind turbines and solar power facilities, can be incompatible with the installations' missions. (4) Competition for the electromagnetic spectrum through the proliferation of consumer demand for wireless devices, including smart phones and tablet computers, and the associated data-intensive applications, is increasingly conflicting with the Department's need to use the electromagnetic spectrum for modern military training and assurance of proper functioning of some weapon systems. (5) National security interests may be threatened when range security becomes a concern based on the nature of the encroachment. For example, ocean observing systems may be used for marine mammal and weather research, climate research, tsunami warning/ verification, and seismic/earthquake monitoring. The littoral nature of Navy training ranges, and the unique types of activity that occur there, make the ranges valuable for data gathering in each of those categories. However, the open nature of the high seas also makes it possible for data to be gathered that may exploit an operational vulnerability. Similarly, land- based development can lead to security concerns due to incompatible development adjacent to or in near proximity to ranges and ownership of such development that raises security concerns. The Department's actions to prevent or mitigate the impediments to realistic training are vital to ensuring adequate range access and ensuring U.S. forces remain at a high state of readiness. However, the committee wants to ensure that the Department is effectively preventing or mitigating these restrictions to ensure that U.S. force readiness remains high. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a review of the Department's activities to prevent or mitigate environmental limitations and man-made encroachment, and ensure adequate security of training ranges and operations. At a minimum, this study should address the following: (1) What are the types of restrictions, and how do they affect the Department's ability to train and operate? (2) What authorities does the Department have, or need, to be able to protect its ability to train and operate? (3) To what extent has the Department identified restrictions on its air-, land-, and sea-based training ranges, and how has the Department prevented or mitigated such restrictions? (4) How does the Department collaborate with local governments, private companies, and/or other federal agencies to protect its ability to train and operate? And, what areas require improvement? (5) How effective are the Department's systems to measure the effects of environmental limitations and man-made encroachment and to what extent do opportunities exist to improve these systems? (6) What options does the Department have to mitigate impacts of environmental limitations and man-made encroachment, and at what cost? (7) How does the Department identify and mitigate any relevant security issues related to training range restrictions? (8) Which ranges are at highest risk? And, which ranges should be the highest priority to protect from encroachment due to unique training environments and/or ability to minimize electromagnetic spectrum interference? The committee further directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014, on the findings of the study. GAO Review of DOD Readiness and Risks With the drawdown of forces first from the Republic of Iraq, and now from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan the military has faced a new set of challenges as it plans for an uncertain future with less resources. In its January 2012 strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense and related documents, DOD called for a smaller, lighter, flexible joint force able to conduct a full range of activities but no longer sized to conduct large and protracted stability operations. It also called for a rebalancing of forces to the Asia Pacific region along with the Middle East and several other changes. In March 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed the Deputy Secretary of Defense to work with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a Strategic Choice and Management Review to examine the choices that underlie the defense strategy, posture, and investments, including all past assumptions and systems. Shifts in strategy or assumptions can have a material impact on the way DOD portrays its readiness and the risks it faces. To help inform the committee's oversight and its consideration of the Department's budget request, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review DOD's readiness and the risks the department faces and to report the results of this review to the congressional defense committees. The review should specifically address: (1) The current and historical readiness status of each of the military services including any trends in reported readiness; (2) The current and historical readiness status of each of the current geographic and functional combatant commands, including any trends in reported readiness; (3) The key factors that impact readiness, and how these factors contributed to any reported changes in readiness between March 1, 2013, when sequestration went into effect, and the December 2013 readiness reports; and (4) Changes in strategic and military risk levels between 2011 and 2014, including any changes in the way the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluates and reports strategic and military risks. In reporting on these four elements, the Comptroller General may take a phased approach, reporting on elements (1), (2), and (3) by March 15, 2014 and reporting on element (4) 45 days after DOD delivers the annual Chairman's Risk Assessment and, if applicable, the Secretary of Defense's Risk Mitigation plan to the congressional defense committees. Identification of Foreign-Language Competency The committee recognizes that foreign-language training is expensive and time-consuming. If there is a need to surge skills in a particular language, the place to start is with people who already demonstrate proficiency in the needed language. This promotes efficiency and lowers training costs by making use of language knowledge already acquired by service members. To provide decision-makers with greater visibility of the language skills and cultural knowledge of service members that could inform force management processes, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of the military services to query service members returning from deployment to a non-English-speaking country regarding language skills acquired or improved while deployed, and to allow service members to rate their own competence in speaking, oral understanding, reading, and/or writing a foreign language, using a language proficiency self-assessment scale like the one used to assess proficiency standards throughout the U.S. Government. Additionally, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the military services to allow a service member who acquired a speaking knowledge of a language to be tested on oral proficiency alone. The data collected from these language competency self-assessments and tests should be made accessible to service commanders and others who need to identify a pool of potential candidates for advanced language training to meet force management requirements. Missile Defense Capabilities for Guam The committee recognizes the strategic importance of providing ballistic missile defense for Guam and the current U.S. assets based there. The committee further recognizes that as part of bilateral negotiations with the Government of Japan, the U.S. military presence on the island and the need to protect it from a missile threat are projected to increase. The committee notes that the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation contains a recommendation to base an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) on Guam as part of the realignment of U.S. Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. The committee also notes the actions of the Department of Defense of temporarily stationing a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense capability on Guam to respond to immediate threats of missile launches from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea toward U.S. military assets on Guam. The committee is concerned that despite projected growth in the U.S. military population on Guam and the President's new Defense Strategic Guidance focusing on the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility, the Army has not provided any resources for the basing of an AMDTF or other missile defense capability on Guam in the current year budget proposal or in the Future Years Defense Program. The committee is aware that Aegis-based missile defense capabilities or other land-based missile defense capabilities also could, if required, provide coverage and defense for assets on Guam. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the appropriate military services, to brief the committee by December 1, 2013, on: (1) Any analysis the Department of Defense has conducted to determine which missile-defense capability or capabilities are best suited for the defense of Guam and the recommendations from that analysis; (2) The Department's timeline for resourcing and establishing an AMDTF or other missile-defense capability on or for Guam, including the number of required personnel billets and costs; (3) An assessment of which component of the military--Active or Reserve--would be most appropriate to support the mission, either fully or partially; and (4) A description of permanent and other missile defense capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region that could provide protection to U.S. military assets on Guam. Navy Expeditionary Combat Command The committee recognizes the important contribution of the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) as a scalable force that facilitates securing strategic access and global freedom of action. Specifically, the Naval Construction Battalion plays a critical role in support of operating forces through efforts such as construction of roads, bridges, bunkers, airfields, and logistics bases in addition to civic action projects. The committee is concerned that the Navy's planned force-structure reduction of 8,000 positions could hinder the strategic capabilities of the Navy. The Naval Construction Battalion represents approximately 50 percent of the total NECC manpower, and as a high-demand, low-density asset, the committee encourages the Navy to consider the important contribution of these forces. Military Ocean Terminal Concord The committee is concerned about the readiness status of the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California. The port's net explosive weight limitation, combined with its other facilities such as magazines, rail lines, piers, and staging areas, gives it the capacity to handle common user ordnance load-out requirements for the military services and combatant commanders during wartime and contingency operations. Consequently, it is a key national asset essential to military readiness, and the committee recognizes its need to be maintained. The Government Accountability Office in its May 13, 2013, report ``Defense Logistics: The Department of Defense's Report on Strategic Seaports Addressed All Congressionally Directed Elements,'' cited significant deficiencies that impair the port's capability to support required missions. Information provided to the committee by the Department of the Army, which is responsible for the operation and maintenance of MOTCO, indicates port facilities and equipment need major rehabilitation and modernization. While the Army has been directed by internal Department of Defense documents to fund equipment and facility improvements and pier replacements, the committee notes these efforts will not return the port to full operational status until 2018 at the earliest. Because the lack of this critical mobility infrastructure could delay support of operational plans, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide to the congressional defense committees an assessment of: (1) The current physical condition of Military Ocean Terminal Concord; (2) The ability of the port to successfully execute mission requirements of the military services and the combatant commanders; (3) The repairs required to bring the port to full mission capability, to include total cost and timeline and options to expedite the timeline; (4) The risk associated with failing to make equipment and facility improvements and pier replacements in a timely fashion; and (5) Options available to mitigate any shortfalls, including munitions supply, load-out, and transportation options, and potential statutory or regulatory waivers. As part of the assessment, the Comptroller General shall consult with the combatant commanders regarding their operational requirements. The report shall be submitted no later than December 31, 2013, and may be submitted in a classified format if necessary. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Army to provide to the congressional defense committees a summary of the current equipment and facilities conditions MOTCO. The report shall include: a status of the Environmental Impact Statement; a projects list identifying requirements necessary to address infrastructure deficiencies by fiscal year and funding amounts required; the design initiation associated with the project list; and a time line for completion of the infrastructure improvements. This report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 2013. The report may be submitted in a classified format if necessary. Report on Career Progression of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps Advisory Personnel For the past several years, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps have been providing forces to support security force assistance missions in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and other locations around the world. To conduct these missions, the services have relied on a number of non-doctrinal approaches. For example, in Afghanistan, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps have increasingly relied on larger units, such as brigade combat teams, to provide advisory teams. In addition, the U.S. Army is beginning to execute its regionally aligned force concept, which aligns specific brigades to specific regions and calls for the deployment of small groups of leaders to conduct security force assistance activities while the rest of the unit remains at the home station. The committee is concerned about the career implications for U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps personnel assigned to security force assistance-related activities as well as the ability of these units to conduct these activities while maintaining readiness requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to examine and report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2014, on the impact of the U.S. Army's and U.S. Marine Corps' approaches to the security force assistance mission, including: (1) To what extent the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps have policies or procedures to identify personnel with advising or other security force assistance- related skills and experience; (2) To what extent the assignment of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps officer and senior enlisted personnel to advising or other security force assistance-related activities has affected the career progression of these individuals, including opportunities for command positions, promotions, or other career development opportunities; and (3) What impact, if any, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps' approaches of relying on units to provide personnel for advising and other security force assistance-related activities have had on the units' ability to maintain readiness. Sustainable Range Planning The committee notes that section 2802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) requires the Department of Defense to provide installation master plans for a period not to exceed 10 years that, among other things, shall address sustainable range planning. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense submits the annual Sustainable Range Report, prepares Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans for military installations, and works with other Federal, State, and local government entities, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations to address situations both on and in the vicinity of military installations and ranges that impact the ability of the Department to perform its mission. These efforts are essential to avoiding or reducing encroachment, sustaining military readiness, and ensuring the continued viability of military test and training ranges. The committee encourages the Department to leverage these existing sustainable range planning efforts as an integral part of installation master plans. Water Egress Training The committee recognizes the need to ensure that the Department of Defense provides its rotary-wing aviators with the best survivability training available. The committee is concerned that not all services have the facilities and capabilities necessary to ensure adequate training and throughput. The committee believes that a reassessment of the Department's capabilities is especially important given the new defense strategic guidance shifting departmental focus to the Pacific Rim. The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a formal assessment and report back to the congressional defense committees, not later than April 1, 2014, on the state of the Department's rotary-wing water egress training capabilities. At a minimum, this assessment should include: (1) Training facilities and infrastructure; (2) Disparities and commonalities among the military departments; (3) Current training capacity and its adequacy to meet future requirements; and (4) Any capacity shortfalls in meeting water egress training requirements. Other Matters Concerns Related to Fuel Rate Determinations The committee continues to be concerned with the insufficient funding of fuel within the operation and maintenance accounts based on inadequate fuel rate determinations by the Department of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) within the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF). In fiscal year 2012, $1.0 billion was reprogrammed from other accounts to the DWCF to support cash balances within the fund and to avoid increasing the cost charged to the Department of Defense customer as a result of fully burdened costs for fuel exceeding budget estimates. In fiscal year 2013, the Department requested an additional $1.4 billion be reprogrammed to cover costs not captured in the budgeted fuel rates. The committee believes these significant reprogramming requests were due to the Department underestimating the fully burdened cost of procuring and distributing refined fuel. The committee is aware that the Office of Management and Budget provides the Department with a budgeted price per crude barrel (an estimated projection of the market rate) from which the Department builds the fully burdened rate charged to customers. However, estimates of the fully burdened rate have been well short of the market rates, requiring reprogramming or price adjustments during the fiscal year to maintain solvency within the fund. This will perpetuate into fiscal year 2014, as Department officials have stated that the shortfalls relating to the cost of refined fuel have not been resolved within the current budget request. This practice of poor estimation disrupts congressional oversight, promulgates faulty budgeting practices, and leaves the readiness of the military services at risk in the year of execution. Based on the current budgeted rate for refined fuel, the Government Accountability Office has estimated that funds in fiscal year 2014 are understated by approximately $536.0 million, which would generate significant shortfalls in the operation and maintenance accounts if the Department raises rates during the fiscal year. The committee encourages the Department to revise processes for fuel rate determination to better capture market indicators for refined fuel pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, prior to submission of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2015. In the interim, the committee has recommended authorization of additional funds to support the anticipated shortfalls due to the inadequate budgeted rate for 2014. Furthermore, if the Department fails to reform its budgeting practices related to fuel rates, and subsequently requests a reprogramming due to shortfalls within the DWCF specifically tied to the fully burdened costs of refining fuel, the committee will not look favorably upon such a request. Department of Defense Travel Restrictions The committee commends the Department of Defense's efforts to promote efficiency and reduce expenses. The committee further commends the Department's efforts to increase scrutiny on travel, training, and conference spending by elevating approval authority and implementing a tiered approval structure. However, the committee is concerned that designated approval authorities may be subjectively restricting travel to specific geographic locations, and that these determinations are a product of perception rather than cost efficiencies or misalignment with training requirements, professional military education, or support to combatant commanders. As such, the committee encourages the Department to continue its efforts to increase scrutiny and accountability of travel, training, and conference spending, but recommends that the Department not prohibit travel to specific geographical locations without case-by-case consideration and to develop objective guidance and accounting measures for approving travel, training, and conference spending. Navy Arctic Roadmap The committee continues to be concerned about the Department of Defense's resources and preparedness for accessing, operating in, and protecting national interests in the Arctic. The Navy currently estimates that between 2020 and 2030, the Arctic could be ice free for one month during the summer which may lead to an increase in trans-Arctic passage for vessels seeking to reduce transit distance by utilizing the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. The Navy's Strategic Objectives for the Arctic was signed in May 2010 and is referred to in both the Navy Arctic Capabilities Based Assessment, approved in September 2011, and the Navy Arctic Environmental Capabilities Based Assessment, approved in December 2012. Those objectives include ensuring Navy forces are capable and ready, contributing to the safety, stability and security in the region, safeguarding U.S. maritime interests, protecting critical infrastructure and key resources in the Arctic, and strengthening and fostering new cooperative relationships in the region. As a global Nation, the United States needs to ensure that the Navy is adequately prepared to preserve U.S. national security interests and collaborate with other Arctic nations if and when the region will be open for passage with increased traffic. The committee recognizes the importance of transparency of action without seeking to militarize the region. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a roadmap for future activities and costs for training and operating in the Arctic. This roadmap should be a derivative of the National Security Strategy, and shall identify proposed exercises (including table top exercises), to include the frequency, cost, and a more detailed investment strategy across the Program Objective Memorandum through fiscal years 2020 to support a timeframe leading to increased operations in the region between 2020 to 2030. Additionally, the Navy should include details regarding international forums in which they participate. The committee further directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide this roadmap to the congressional defense committees by February 28, 2014. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters The budget request for fiscal year 2014 included $31.2 million in operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). The committee notes that this request reflects a transfer of NSHQ authorized funding from operation and maintenance, Army, to operation and maintenance, Defense- wide. The committee does not support this transfer and as such maintains the NSHQ authorization within operation and maintenance, Army. Operations and Maintenance of the Ballistic Missile Defense System The committee is concerned with the increasing share of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget being consumed by operations and maintenance. According to MDA budget documents, this will amount to $1.47 billion over the fiscal year 2014 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP); these costs are increasing over the fiscal year 2014 FYDP. The committee is aware that former Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn issued a Memorandum for Secretaries of the military departments on June 10, 2011, that established funding responsibilities for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Under this memorandum, the MDA will fund sustainment of BMDS-specific mission equipment and initial spares, as well as the first 2 years of operations of BMDS-specific mission equipment. The committee understands that with the maturation of missile defense systems, the MDA and the military departments are grappling for the first time with the division of responsibility in these long-term operations and maintenance costs; the now operational Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, which was deployed to Guam as of April 21, 2013, is one example. The committee expects to be kept informed of any difficulty in the appropriate division of operations and maintenance funding responsibility between MDA and the military departments. Weather Data and Modeling The committee is aware that weather forecasting plays a vital role in mission readiness, and that the Department of Defense has taken steps to improve its forecasting. However, weather models are only as effective as the underlying data which inform them. The military relies largely on weather balloons for data gathering. Further, the committee is aware of recent advances in data gathering methods already in use in the private sector which promise to deliver more accurate data, and thus, more precise forecasts. In an asymmetric warfare environment, inclement or unanticipated weather phenomena can have a dramatic impact on U.S. and coalition forces, especially with regard to air superiority and special operations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate a brief on existing commercial meteorological data gathering technologies, their adaptability to military usage, practicality in a combat environment, and accuracy of data. The brief should also include estimated costs associated with acquisition, maintenance, and licensing, where applicable, of these commercially available technologies. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding This section would authorize appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Energy and Environment Section 311--Deadline for Submission of Reports on Proposed Budgets for Activities Relating to Operational Energy Strategy This section would modify amend section 138c(e) of title 10, United States Code, to revise the date of submission for the report on the proposed budgets for that fiscal year that were not certified. Section 312--Facilitation of Interagency Cooperation in Conservation Programs of the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Interior to Avoid or Reduce Adverse Impacts on Military Readiness Activities This section would amend section 2684a of title 10, United States Code, to permit a recipient of funds under the Sikes Act to be able to use the funds for matching funds or cost-sharing requirements of conservation programs. This section would also expire the authority on October 1, 2019, but permit any agreements that were entered into prior to September 30, 2019 to continue according to its terms and conditions. Section 313--Reauthorization of Sikes Act This section would extend the authority of the Sikes Act through 2019. Section 314--Cooperative Agreements Under Sikes Act for Land Management Related to Department of Defense Readiness Activities This section would amend section 103A of the Sikes Act, section 670c-1 of title 16, United States Code, to permit lump sum payment and accrual of interest used for the purposes of the original agreement. This section would also permit the cooperative agreements to be used to acquire property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government, and sets limitations on agreements that are not on military installations. Finally, this section would also expire the authority on October 1, 2019, but permit any agreements that were entered into prior to September 30, 2019 to continue according to its terms and conditions. Section 315--Exclusions from Definition of ``Chemical Substance'' under Toxic Substances Control Act This section would modify section 2602(2)(B) of title 15, United States Code, to add to the exclusions any component of any article including shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants when manufactured for or used in such an article, and primers. Section 316--Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement This section would amend section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (Section 42 of United States Code 17142) to exempt the Department of Defense from the requirements related to contracts for alternative or synthetic fuel in that section. Section 317--Clarification of Prohibition on Disposing of Waste in Open-Air Burn Pits This section would codify the definition of covered waste as it relates to the requirements established by section 317 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; title 10 of United States Code 2701 note). Section 318--Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or Construction of Biofuels Refineries This section would require the Department of Defense to obtain a congressional authorization before entering into a contract for the planning, design, refurbishing, or construction of a biofuels refinery. Section 319--Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels This section would limit the Department of Defense's ability to purchase or produce biofuels until the earlier of either the date on which the Budget Control Act of 2011 is no longer in effect, or the date on which the cost of biofuel is equal to the cost of conventional fuels. This section would provide an exception for biofuel test and certification and research and development. Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment Section 321--Littoral Combat Ship Strategic Sustainment Plan This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to create a Strategic Sustainment Plan for the Littoral Combat Ship and submit this plan to the congressional defense committees not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 322--Review of Critical Manufacturing Capabilities within Army Arsenals This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review current and expected manufacturing requirements across the Department of Defense to identify critical manufacturing capabilities which could be executed by Government-owned arsenals, and to brief the results of the review to the congressional defense committees. The committee supports efforts to improve utilization of Army arsenals by the military services and Defense agencies. The committee encourages greater use of Army arsenals across the Department of Defense to meet manufacturing requirements and applauds efforts to increase visibility of the manufacturing capabilities provided by Army arsenals in order to support national security requirements. Section 323--Inclusion of Army Arsenals Capabilities in Solicitations This section would require Program Executive Officers and Program Managers to solicit information from Government-owned arsenals when undertaking a make-or-buy analysis, notify Government-owned arsenals of the requirement, and allow arsenals that have the capability to fulfill a manufacturing requirement to submit a proposal for the requirement. The committee notes that in addition to directly soliciting information from the arsenals, Program Executive Officers and Program Managers may utilize the Materiel Enterprise Capabilities Database (MEC-D) and other organic industrial base enterprise-wide capabilities information. The committee notes that utilization of the MEC-D provides quick access to organic industrial base capabilities information and assists in consideration of manufacturing and repair requirements. The committee commends the Army for development of the MEC-D and encourages its use. Subtitle D--Reports Section 331--Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to Personnel and Unit Readiness This section would amend the report required under section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on the ability of the geographic and functional combatant commanders to successfully meet their respective contingency and operational plans and key mission essential tasks. This section would also require the report to include an assessment by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the level of risk incurred by using contract support in contingency operations. In addition, this section adds a quarterly readiness reporting requirement for the defense combat support agencies to section 482 of title 10, United States Code. These reports would have to include readiness trends and indicators and an assessment of an agency's ability to execute formal operational plans and to support contingency operations. The committee is concerned that it does not receive comprehensive reporting on the geographic and functional combatant commanders' ability to successfully execute the full range of their respective operational and contingency plans. The committee believes that absent this information, its ability to make informed oversight decisions regarding the readiness of U.S. forces may be degraded. The committee understands that this lack of visibility may be, in part, due to classification issues. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to submit multiple annexes as required to provide complete and timely readiness information to the congressional defense committees. The committee is also concerned that it lacks visibility on the readiness of the various combat support agencies. These agencies are a key readiness enabler, and the inability to understand how they contribute to military readiness limits the ability of Congress to provide effective oversight of military readiness. Section 332--Repeal of Annual Comptroller General Report on Army Progress This section would repeal the requirement that the Comptroller General of the United States report on the Army's progress in moving to a modular force design as the Army has completed the transition. Section 333--Revision to Requirement for Annual Submission of Information Regarding Information Technology Capital Assets This section would amend the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314; 10 U.S.C. 221 note) to align Department of Defense high-threshold information technology Capital Asset reporting with the Department's Major Automated Information Systems reporting and its Exhibit 300 reporting to the Office of Management and Budget. Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority Section 341--Limitation on Reduction of Force Structure at Lajes Air Force Base, Azores This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from reducing the force structure at Lajes Air Force Base, Azores, based on the force structure in existence on October 1, 2013, until the Secretary of Defense briefs the congressional defense committees. This brief shall specifically assess the efficacy of Lajes Air Force Base, Azores in support of the United States overseas force posture. Section 342--Prohibition on Performance of Department of Defense Flight Demonstration Teams Outside the United States This section would place a 2 year moratorium on the Department of Defense use of funds for airshows outside the United States. Subtitle F--Other Matters Section 351--Requirement to Establish Policy on Joint Combat Uniforms This section would establish as national policy a requirement for all the U.S. military services to use a joint combat camouflage uniform, with certain exceptions. The committee notes that the Department of Defense has not complied with section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) which required the military departments to establish joint criteria for future ground combat uniforms. Rather than continue on a course that does not, as the Government Accountability Office reported, meet statutory requirements for the development of service- unique uniforms that provide service members equivalent levels of performance and protection nor minimize risk to individuals operating in the joint battle space, the committee instead adopts a path that would provide standardization and economies of scale while at the same time ensuring new uniforms are joint, effective, compatible with troops' personal equipment, and suitable to operational needs. TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS OVERVIEW Although the committee supports the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for end strength for the Active and Reserve Components, it continues to have concerns with the amount and pace of reductions over the next 3 years and the impact this will have on force structure. The budget request reduces the Active Duty end strength authorizations by little more than 40,000 from the fiscal year 2013 authorized levels. However, the actual reduction levels will be closer to 15,000 since the Army will end fiscal year 2013 at approximately 530,000 (about 22,000 below the fiscal year 2013 authorized levels) and the Marine Corps will end the year at approximately 193,000 (about 4,300 below the fiscal year 2013 authorized levels). The Army and Marine Corps requests are within the minimum levels on end strength prescribed in section 402 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The Air Force will make minimum reductions in its Active Component. The Navy has a slight growth of 900 sailors from its fiscal year 2013 authorization, but remains undermanned by almost 4,000 sailors, well below minimum end strength levels. While the Navy believes that it will achieve its authorized end strength at the end of fiscal year 2013, that has yet to be seen, and could continue to impact the Navy's ability to meet force structure requirements in fiscal year 2014. The budget request includes a reduction of 8,100 for the Reserve Components. The Army National Guard (4,000) and the Navy Reserve (3,400) make up the majority of the reductions. Both requests are consistent with the fiscal year 2013 end strength reduction plan submitted with last year's budget request. The Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve have minimal reductions pending the results of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force. The committee remains concerned that unfettered reductions in end strength will have a detrimental impact on force structure and, ultimately, operational mission capability and capacity among the services. The committee recognizes that the Army and Marine Corps have implemented planned end strength reductions over the next several years, and cautions the services not to abruptly change this course of action and break faith with those who have served this Nation in war. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Operational Reserves The committee understands that the Army and Air Force are reducing end strength and rebalancing force structure in response to the drawdown in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, reduced budgets, and the effects of sequestration. However, as has been stated in previous years, the committee remains concerned with increased potential reductions in the Reserve Components, specifically for the Army and the Air Force. The Reserve Components have been and remain an integral capability of the total force that must continue to be embraced as an operational reserve through periodic mobilization for real-world missions. Such employment sustains the skills and competencies to enable the Reserve Components to respond to crises or combat requirements in a timely manner. As the focus shifts from Afghanistan, the potential for persistent conflict remains. Thus, the committee continues to encourage the Secretary of Defense and the military services to ensure rigorous analysis is used when assessing the capabilities of the total force. Such analysis should be conducted if further reductions to force structure are necessary, and should include an assessment of the ability to meet the requirements of the combatant commands and those of the Federal Government and the States for homeland security and natural disasters. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Active Forces Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces This section would authorize the following end strengths for Active Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September 30, 2014: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from --------------------------------------------- Service FY 2013 Committee Authorized Request Recom- FY 2014 FY 2013 mendation Request Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army.................................................. 552,100 520,000 520,000 0 -32,100 Navy.................................................. 322,700 323,600 323,600 0 900 USMC.................................................. 197,300 190,200 190,200 0 -7,100 Air Force............................................. 329,460 327,600 327,600 0 -1,860 --------------------------------------------------------- DOD................................................. 1,401,560 1,361,400 1,361,400 0 -40,160 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of September 30, 2014. The committee recommends 520,000 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 323,600 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 190,200 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 327,600 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air Force. Subtitle B--Reserve Forces Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve This section would authorize the following end strengths for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of September 30, 2014: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from -------------------------------------------- Service FY 2013 Committee Authorized Request Recom- FY 2014 FY 2013 mendation Request Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army National Guard.................................... 358,200 354,200 354,200 0 -4,000 Army Reserve........................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0 Navy Reserve........................................... 62,500 59,100 59,100 0 -3,400 Marine Corps Reserve................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0 Air National Guard..................................... 105,700 105,400 105,400 0 -300 Air Force Reserve...................................... 70,880 70,400 70,400 0 -480 -------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total............................................ 841,880 833,700 833,700 0 -8,180 Coast Guard Reserve.................................... 9,000 9,000 9,000 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves This section would authorize the following end strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of September 30, 2014: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from -------------------------------------------- Service FY 2013 Committee Authorized Request Recom- FY 2014 FY 2013 mendation Request Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army National Guard.................................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0 Army Reserve........................................... 16,277 16,261 16,261 0 -16 Naval Reserve.......................................... 10,114 10,159 10,159 0 45 Marine Corps Reserve................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 Air National Guard..................................... 14,765 14,734 14,734 0 -31 Air Force Reserve...................................... 2,888 2,911 2,911 0 23 -------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total............................................ 78,365 78,386 78,386 0 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 413-- End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) This section would authorize the following end strengths for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2014: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from -------------------------------------------- Service FY 2013 Committee Authorized Request Recom- FY 2014 FY 2013 mendation Request Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army National Guard.................................... 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0 Army Reserve........................................... 8,395 8,395 8,395 0 0 Air National Guard..................................... 22,180 21,875 21,875 0 -305 Air Force Reserve...................................... 10,400 10,429 10,429 0 29 -------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total............................................ 68,185 67,909 67,909 0 -276 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 414--Fiscal Year 2014 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status Technicians This section would establish the maximum end strengths for the Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual status technicians as of September 30, 2014: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from -------------------------------------------- Service FY 2013 Committee Authorized Request Recom- FY 2014 FY 2013 mendation Request Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army National Guard.................................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0 Air National Guard..................................... 350 350 350 0 0 Army Reserve........................................... 595 595 595 0 0 Air Force Reserve...................................... 90 90 90 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total............................................ 2,635 2,635 2,635 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time National Guard duty during fiscal year 2014 to provide operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count against the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section 412 of this Act unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from -------------------------------------------- Service FY 2013 Committee Authorized Request Recom- FY 2014 FY 2013 mendation Request Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army National Guard.................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 Army Reserve........................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 Naval Reserve.......................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 Marine Corps Reserve................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 Air National Guard..................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 Air Force Reserve...................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total............................................ 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations Section 421--Military Personnel This section would authorize appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in the funding table in section 4401 of division D of this Act. TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY OVERVIEW The committee has taken a number of actions to address areas of concern. With regard to military justice, the committee fundamentally reformed the way that the Department of Defense must address sexual assault in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and provides significant additional support to victims of this terrible crime. Specifically, with regard to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the committee limited the convening authority's discretion to change a court-martial finding and sentence; eliminated the 5-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for sexual assault and sexual assault of a child; and, established dismissal (for officers) and dishonorable discharge (for enlisted personnel) as the mandatory minimum sentence for service members convicted by court-marital of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts at those offenses. To improve support to victims, the committee mandated that each of the Armed Services establish Victims' Counsels to provide dedicated legal assistance to victims of sex-related crimes. Furthermore, the committee expanded whistleblower protections by adding reports of rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct as protected communications by members of the Armed Forces with Members of Congress or an Inspector General. A number of initiatives reflected the committee's concerns about the number of general and flag officers serving at a time when military manpower is being reduced. Thus, the committee reduced the number of general and flag officers on Active Duty, mandated a review of the requirements and authorizations for Reserve Component general and flag officers in an active status, and directed the Comptroller General to assess trends in the costs of general and flag officers on Active Duty. In support of military families, the committee authorized the Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to conduct family support pilot programs for the immediate family members of military personnel assigned to Special Operations Forces. The committee also authorized transitional compensation and other benefits for dependents of retirement eligible service members who are separated from military service for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. With regard to the Reserve Components, the committee established a 180-day minimum notification requirement for members of the Reserve Components before deployment to or cancellation of a deployment to a contingency operation. Furthermore, out of concern for the time that Reserve Component members were spending in the disability evaluation system, the committee directed a review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. Finally, the committee adopted the Stolen Valor Act, which would make it a crime to fraudulently claim to be a recipient of certain decorations or medals with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Air Force Education Programs Air Education and Training Command (AETC) provides basic military training, initial and advanced technical training, flying training, and professional military and degree-granting education. The committee recognizes the importance of defense- and technical-focused education and is concerned that, as budget pressures force the services to reevaluate their priorities, AETC may be forced to shift resources to training and reduce its commitment to professional and technical degree- granting education. Such action could have long term implications on the professionalism of the Air Force. Section 245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the National Research Council to review specialized degree-granting graduate programs of the Department of Defense in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and management. The report required a review of existing organizational structures, including reporting chains, to manage the graduate education needs within the military departments. Until the committee receives this report, the committee encourages the Air Force to continue its traditional emphasis on education and maintain its Air Force education programs. Assessing the Trend in Costs of General and Flag Officers on Active Duty While the committee understands efforts are underway in the Department of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military services to control the numbers of general and flag officers on Active Duty, the committee is concerned about the costs associated with sustaining that general and flag officer population as the size of the military forces decreases. According to the Department of Defense, there were 917 general and flag officers on Active Duty in fiscal year 2013. To better understand the costs of maintaining a sizable senior military officer population, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess the trends in costs from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2013 of the general and flag officers of the Armed Forces on Active Duty for each fiscal year. The Comptroller General shall provide the assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no later than April 15, 2014. In making this assessment, the Comptroller General shall, as a minimum, assess both the direct and support costs associated with general and flag officers. In assessing the direct costs, the Comptroller General shall include basic pay, basic allowance for subsistence, basic allowance for housing and, to the extent practicable, the tax advantage associated with those allowances; and, all other compensation paid to general or flag officers as reflected on military leave and earnings statements; the travel and per diem costs of such officers; the official entertainment and representation expenditures of such officers; and, other direct costs the Comptroller General, in coordination with the committee, determines to be appropriate. For support costs, the assessment shall include the direct costs, as described above, of all officer and enlisted aides assigned to or supporting general or flag officers; the travel and per diem costs of such aides; the annual expenditures for military housing provided the general and flag officers; and other support costs the Comptroller General, in coordination with the committee, determines to be appropriate. Clarification of Conferees Statement on the Assignments of Military Officers as Academic Instructors at Military Service Academies as Joint Duty Assignments The committee recognizes that the conferee statement contained in Sense of Senate on inclusion of assignments as academic instructors at the military service academies as joint duty assignments, on page 758 of the conference report (H. Rept. 112-705) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, is contrary to section 668 of title 10, United States Code. The committee recognizes that the Secretary of Defense must adhere to the requirements in law and that the law takes precedence over directive report language contained in a conference report. Therefore, the committee seeks to clarify for the Secretary of Defense that he must comply with section 668 of title 10, United States Code, when determining joint duty assignment designations in accordance with section 661 of title 10, United States Code. The committee recognizes that the directive report language in the conference report stemmed from concern that Naval officers with expertise in military science and humanities may be deterred from service on the faculty of the United States Naval Academy (USNA) due to their inability to obtain promotion opportunities and joint duty credit requirements in the course of their career. To ensure that the USNA continues to attract and retain mature and skilled instructors with successful Navy careers, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the barriers faced by instructors at the USNA and to develop a plan to mitigate those challenges, including ways to achieve expanded promotion opportunities and joint duty assignments. This plan shall include assignment policies to ensure the highest quality Naval officers who seek assignments as USNA instructors remain competitive for promotion and that the Navy has a method for ensuring the quality of instructors assigned to the academy is not degraded. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the findings and plan to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 1, 2014. Community-Based Youth Organizations The committee commends the numerous community-based youth organizations, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and others that have stepped forward to support military children and dependents. Children of military personnel face many challenges stemming from frequent moves due to changes in permanent stationing, to dealing with a deployed parent or parents, trying to support an injured, ill or wounded parent who is recovering, or from losing a parent. Community-based youth organizations provide needed support to our military families. These organizations are valuable assets in providing consistent and stable education and prevention programs that constitute positive experiences in the development of our military children. While the Department of Defense is confronting difficult decisions as the budgets decline, the committee urges the Department to continue to partner with community-based youth organizations to provide youth education and development programs for military children. Comptroller General Review of Recommendations to Prevent Sexual Misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base and Other Basic and Technical Training Facilities The sexual misconduct by Military Training Instructors (MTIs) at Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas has been one of the largest sexual misconduct investigations within the military with nearly 60 victims from basic and technical training. To date, over 32 MTIs have been investigated and 18 have been convicted. While the cases continue to be prosecuted, the Air Force undertook a significant effort to understand the circumstances that lead to this environment, and what steps needed to be taken to correct the situation and prevent such assaults from occurring in the future. A Command-Directed Investigation led to 46 recommendations, of which the Air Force proposed to implement 45. In addition, the Air Force conducted an investigation focused on senior leadership and organization actions in response to the delayed reporting of sexual assault allegations. The committee remains focused on efforts to ensure that such sexual misconduct does not occur at basic military training or technical training bases across the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the actions taken by the Air Force as a result of the investigations in order to provide a status of the recommendations; to assess the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations; and to conduct an assessment of best practices from among the services that can be shared to prevent sexual misconduct at basic and technical training. The review should also identify challenges and other potential improvements or recommendations for services to review to prevent sexual misconduct from occurring at basic and technical training bases. The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit the results of the review by April 1, 2014, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Consistency Among Exceptional Family Member Programs The 2013 Annual Report to Congress on the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council, as required by section 1781a of Title 10, United States Code, contained a number of recommendations to improve support to military families, such as establishing evaluation criteria to ensure that programs are effective based on outcome measurements that are aligned with program objectives. The Council also recommended that the services standardize their Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) offerings to ensure parity across the services, the need for which have become apparent at joint bases. While the committee supports efforts to improve parity and standardization of the services provided under EFMP, the committee urges the services and the Department to work together to ensure that such standardization and parity does not result in the minimization of program offerings to EFMP families. Disposition of Remains by Host Nations The committee recognizes that there are instances in which a host nation under Status of Forces Agreements may require the retention of the remains of a service member killed while stationed overseas. However, the committee believes that the services have a responsibility to ensure that such remains are returned as quickly as reasonably possible while complying with the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement. The committee understands there are Status of Forces Agreements that do not address or include specific regulations or guidance on mortuary affairs. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of Defense to work with the Department of State to review this issue and determine whether inclusion of such guidance and regulation, including providing technical assistance, will help to ensure the expeditious return of service members remains when the Department of State updates Status of Forces Agreements with host nations. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the committee on Armed Forces of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than December 31, 2014, on the results of the review conducted with the Department of State. Domestic Violence and Child Abuse The committee recognizes the improvements the Department of Defense and the services have made over the past several years to address domestic violence and child abuse among the force. However, the committee remains concerned that the stress on the force continues to take its toll and may be manifested in increasing incidents of domestic violence, child abuse, and neglect. The committee appreciates the actions the Department has taken to address the recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States, which were included in the ``Report to Congressional Defense Committees on Improvements to Department of Defense Domestic Violence Program'', dated April 2012. These actions included hiring additional Domestic Abuse Victim Advocates; expansion of the New Parent Support Home Visitation Program; hiring of additional clinical providers and staff to oversee programs and personnel; implementation and tracking of chaplain domestic violence training; and development of a formalized oversight framework for domestic violence programs to improve management and delivery of services. The committee understands that the Department is moving forward on an incident-based reporting system that would accurately track domestic violence incident, and recommends that the system also be able to track child abuse incidents as well. The committee looks forward to the update on the status of recommendations in the near future. Department of Defense Efforts To Ensure Operation of Current Prohibition on Accrual of Interest on Direct Student Loans of Members of the Armed Forces Receiving Imminent Danger Pay The committee is strongly supportive of the current prohibition on accrual of interest for service members serving in a combat zone. However, the committee is concerned that lack of information regarding this benefit and the administrative burden placed on service members in order to receive it may be preventing more members of the armed services from participating. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all service members, when assigned to duty in an area for which special pay is available, are made aware of the benefits provided under section 455(o) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(o)), and include this information in the out-processing checklist, briefings and counseling that all deploying service members receive. Foreign Exchange Program for Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets and Critical Military Language Training The committee commends the Army for establishing a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet foreign exchange program that provides cadets an unprecedented and valuable training opportunity in a non-contingency, deployed environment to learn foreign cultures and languages. The committee understands that the program is relatively new and is still maturing; however, the committee remains concerned in several areas. First, there is a lack of consistency in the programs among the various foreign nations. Second, efforts to develop greater coordination with the various combatant commands (COCOMs) are disjointed. Third, it is unclear to the committee that the overall mission and goals of the program are in step with the security cooperation strategy. The committee urges the Army, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide greater oversight and support of this important leadership development program to ensure that it is meeting the needs of the cadets, the service, and the missions of the COCOMs. The Department of Defense has highlighted over the past decade, and more recently in the fiscal year 2014 budget submission, the strategic importance of language and cultural programs in order to build international partnerships as well as the successful outcomes across the full spectrum of operations. The committee believes the ROTC cadet foreign exchange program, as well as the use of Language Training Centers at accredited universities in support of the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap, National Security Education Program, and the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, are instrumental in achieving the Secretary of Defense's goals. Fully Burdened Life Cycle Cost of Military Personnel The committee applauds the Department of Defense's efforts to standardize costing models for Active Duty and civilian personnel across the Department. The committee understands the Secretary of Defense is finalizing a Department of Defense Instruction to formalize the policy, as well as implement a costing tool, Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM), to reduce the myriad of calculations required under current guidelines and reduce errors in costing of Active Duty and civilian personnel. The committee is encouraged by the Department's effort to expand this model to include the full cost of reserve manpower as well. As fiscal pressures become the focus in operational planning and force structure development, it is crucial to understand the cost of the total force in order for leaders to make informed decisions to fulfill combatant commander requirements, as well as homeland defense and natural disaster response. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to incorporate at a minimum all of the existing elements of the FCoM tool for the reserve model and encourages the Secretary to include as many comparable factors between the Active Duty and Reserve Component in the FCoM tool as possible to ensure the most efficient use of resources and manpower. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 180 days after implementation of the reserve costing model. The report shall include an explanation of the elements required in the costing model; the criteria used to determine the elements; how the reserve model compares to the model used for Active Duty; and a comparison of the cost of a similar Active and Reserve unit for each of the services, including the training and mobilization costs of the Reserve unit, with the assumption that an operational Reserve unit will mobilize and deploy once every 5 years, and an Active Duty unit will mobilize and deploy once every 3 years as required by current policy. Mental Health Professional on a Physical Evaluation Board The committee continues to have concerns with the Department of Defense's evaluation of service member physical evaluation board cases that may involve post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury or other mental health conditions. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that a behavioral health professional is included as a member of the board on any physical evaluation board that considers issues of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental health conditions. The behavioral health professional should normally take the place of the medical member of the board, unless as a result of the health related issues before the board, the board would benefit from the presence of both a behavioral health professional and medical member. In this context a behavioral health professional means a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, licensed clinical social worker, or psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse. National Support for Service Members, Veterans, Retirees and their Families The committee recognizes that after more than a decade of war, the Department of Defense and the services have undertaken many initiatives to address the myriad of issues that have been brought to the forefront, such as ensuring the appropriate amounts of equipment and training are available, improving medical evacuations from theater, new treatment for post- traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, building resiliency among the force and family members, and improving transition assistance programs for service members back into civilian communities. While the committee commends the services for their recent efforts to enhance and improve programs and policies that strengthen the resilience of the force, there still remain gaps in the Nation's support for and recognition of service members and their families. When less than 1 percent of the population of our society serves in uniform, it is important for the civilian communities in which they live, work, and return, to understand the challenges uniformed members confront in their service to our Nation. To address these gaps, the committee believes there has to be not only a whole-of-government approach, but also a national approach to improve the myriad of programs that are available to service members, retirees, veterans, and their families through the Government and many civilian organizations and communities. There needs to be an improved recognition of the sacrifices this small population endures for our Nation. The committee urges the Department of Defense to continue to work with Federal, state, local, and non-profit organizations to expand the network of support to ensure not only a whole-of-government approach to supporting and recognizing our Armed Forces but a national effort. Navy Sea Cadet Corps Sustainment The committee recognizes the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps as an exemplary, cost effective program that assists the U.S. Navy by creating a favorable image of the U.S. Navy on the part of American youth and ensuring a high-quality source of future sailors for both enlisted and commissioned service. To ensure the viability of this valuable program, the Secretary of the Navy is strongly urged to ensure that the program is fully funded for fiscal year 2014, and beyond. This amount should take into consideration additional funds that may be necessary as a result of program growth and annual inflation as determined by the U.S. Navy, in conjunction with the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps. Relocation Assistance Program Resource Access Review The committee is concerned with the availability and access to resources provided by the Department of Defense's relocation assistance program to members of the Armed Forces. Acknowledging that some of these services are inherently governmental, the committee, in light of the constrained current and future budgets, directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the current relocation services provided by the Department, and how those services are fulfilling the provision under section 1056 of title 10, United States Code. Included in this report should be an evaluation of whether the present system, including a review of applicable Federal regulations, is utilizing the best practices from both governmental and nongovernmental agencies, and incorporating innovative ideas that allow for the most current, easily accessible, and accurate local area information and services to be provided to service members and their families in the most cost effective manner. The report should be provided to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Reserve Component Temporary Duty Assignments The committee has concerns with the Department of Defense's use of permanent change of station (PCS) orders in lieu of temporary duty orders for Reserve Component members (not including Active Guard and Reserve when activated). Current Department of Defense directives set 180 days as the limit for temporary duty orders. Beyond 180 days, the orders become PCS orders. The committee is concerned that the services have taken advantage of these rules when mobilizing some reservists by either calling them to Active Duty through PCS orders for 181 days or changing the orders from temporary duty to PCS after the member has taken the assignment. This practice, when selectively applied to reservists mobilized for temporary duty from a high cost-of-living area to a low cost-of-living area, allows the services to save money at the expense of the service members and their families. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that if a Reserve Component member receives temporary duty orders, the orders are not changed to PCS orders without required notification and processing. This will protect members of the Reserve Component by ensuring that they are compensated appropriately during their Active Duty service. Furthermore, it will ensure they are able to maintain, without disruption, their full-time households. Review of Programs for Male Victims of Sexual Assault in the U.S. Military In 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs reported that approximately 1 in 100 service men indicated that they experienced sexual trauma in the military. During that same year, the veteran health facilities documented 244,074 occasions in which male veterans were provided military sexual trauma-related outpatient care. In its latest Report on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, the Department of Defense estimates that only about 14% of its service members who are sexually assaulted report that they were a victim of this crime. Reporting a sexual assault is difficult for any victim, but for males in the military, it may be especially daunting. The committee is concerned that the DOD has not focused on efforts to assist male service members to ensure victims receive the specialized care that may be needed. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a review to determine to what extent (1) does the culture of the U.S. military pose unique challenges for preventing and responding to sexual assaults of male service members, (2) what steps the DOD has taken steps to address the incidence of and response to male service members who are sexually assaulted, and (3) whether the DOD established policies and protocols for the provision of medical and mental healthcare to address sexual trauma given the unique requirements for male victims of sexual assault. The Comptroller General shall submit the results of the review by May 30, 2014. Suicides and Military Families Over a decade of conflict has contributed to an increase in suicides among military members. Efforts by the Department of Defense to combat suicide among military members continue; however, what is less known is the impact on military families. The committee is concerned that there may be a corresponding increase in suicides among immediate family members. Currently, the Department of the Army is the only service that attempts to track the number of military dependents that commit suicide. Yet, such collection and validation remains a challenge for the Army. Suicide among the force has a direct impact on military readiness, and suicide among dependents can have a direct impact on individual readiness. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the ability of the services to collect information and perform analysis on suicide among immediate family members as part of their suicide information retention and analysis. The Secretary shall submit a report on the feasibility, including the potential costs, of collecting and retaining such data to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 1, 2014. Support for the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children The committee understands the challenges that military dependent children face when they move, as a result of military orders, from one local educational agency and school district to another. For that reason, the committee supported the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children, as originally expressed in section 539 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The committee reaffirms its support for the compact and encourages the Secretary of Defense to work with the remaining non-signatory states to join the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children. Transition Assistance Program The committee applauds the Department of Defense's revamped Transition Assistance Program to provide assistance to career ready military members transitioning for a career or education following military separation. The new Transition-Goals, Plans, Success (Transition-GPS) is an enhanced program established to assist members with their transition as the military draws down. Transition-GPS gives the Department the flexibility and authorities required to execute its role in providing information, counseling, tools, and training for service members to transition from the military. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continuously improve and build the program by, among other things, partnering with the education community for opportunities to increase interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education and medical programs; and with the veterans community to allow for valuable feedback from recently separated veterans to be incorporated into the program. The committee also supports the Administration's Information Technology (IT) Training and Certification Partnership that will allow service members to obtain IT certifications before they transition from military service, and the new grant program that will allow service members with health care experience to pursue a career in nursing. The committee also encourages the Secretary to use existing authorities to continue to partner with private industry, vocational and technical training centers, and state and professional licensing and credentialing agencies to assist military personnel in obtaining technical skills, licenses, or credentials applicable to their military skill as well as post military employment opportunities. The committee looks forward to the results of, and report on, the pilot program on receipt of civilian credentialing for skills required for Military Occupational Specialties required by section 558 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (Public Law 112- 81). Tuition Assistance The committee recognizes the important value Military Tuition Assistance provides the All-Volunteer Force. An educated force provides increased capability to an already dynamic and highly technical military. The committee supports efforts to afford opportunities to service members to further increase their education while in the military. The committee is concerned that the increased fiscal pressures will impact the viability of the Tuition Assistance Program in the long- term, if the Department of Defense and the military services do not put into place measures to control rising costs. Therefore, requiring service oversight of individual education plans and the use of cost share methods is reasonable action that the services can take to ensure Federal resources are spent efficiently, and ensure that service members maintain a vested interest in their education. The committee also supports efforts by the secretaries concerned to execute their programs to the needs of the individual service, recognizing that how each service views the use of tuition assistance differs based on culture, training, and retention requirements. A Department- wide policy, while worthy, may not be the most efficient or effective method of managing this program. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to maintain flexibility in prescribed regulations and policies to allow the Secretaries of the military departments to execute and maintain a tuition assistance program that will remain viable during a period of budget constraints without impacting the opportunities of deserving service members. U.S. Special Operations Command Educational Initiatives The committee supports U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) education initiatives that provide Special Operations Forces (SOF) with additional professional military education opportunities that serve to professionalize the force. While the committee supports these initiatives, it expects the educational opportunities to address requirements unique to SOF and that they will not duplicate educational opportunities provided by the military services unless the utilization tour required by the services for that educational opportunity proves burdensome for the SOF student. The committee is aware that USSOCOM is in the process of formalizing educational agreements with the Secretaries of the military departments to ensure effective coordination and to establish a process to formalize SOF education requirements. The committee is pleased with this coordination, encourages a rapid coordination process, and looks forward to continued dialogue on the future of SOF education initiatives. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, outlining all SOF-unique educational requirements, recommendations for meeting those requirements, and how the proposed USSOCOM educational initiatives compare to service- offered educational opportunities. Use of Radio in Department of Defense Advertising The Department of Defense spent $450.1 million in advertising in fiscal year 2012. The focus of the Department's commercial advertising expenditures were recruiting and reaching influencers. A review of advertising expenditures shows that the Department spends less than 2 percent of its advertising budget on radio, compared to the 10.1 percent the average national commercial advertiser usually spends. Radio reaches 92 percent of all Americans each week. Thus, the broad reach of radio makes it an effective media vehicle to utilize to reach both recruits and influencers. Radio reaches diverse racial and ethnic communities in our Nation, because there are many stations and networks that target these diverse communities. The committee encourages the Department to examine its commercial advertising expenditures to determine whether greater utilization of radio to reach a larger target audience among diverse communities would be cost-effective. Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program The committee commends the Department of Defense Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program Office for its efforts over the past 5 years to assist the military services by providing information, support, and best practices to maintain a ready Reserve Component with stronger and more resilient service members and families. As the Nation reduces its overseas commitment in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee believes there will continue to be a requirement for the utilization and mobilization of the Reserves in support of combatant commanders and contingency operations for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program remains current, flexible, and viable by maintaining the appropriate expertise, knowledge, and resources in order to meet the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended, to support the operational reserves. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally Section 501--Limitations on Number of General and Flag Officers on Active Duty This section would reduce by 14 the total of the number of general and flag officers authorized to be on Active Duty in the military services, and by 10 the number of general and flag officers authorized to be assigned to joint duty assignments. The reductions would take effect on October 1, 2014. The committee is aware that reductions in the number of general and flag officers are proceeding as a result of previously directed actions by the Secretary of Defense. For example, based on data provided by the Department of Defense, there were 889 general and flag officers on Active Duty in 2001. That number grew to 971 in 2011, but will decrease to 908 in 2013 and is projected to be 869 in 2016. Given both the projected decrease and the known reductions in active end strength, the committee believes the reductions required by this section are prudent. Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management Section 511--Minimum Notification Requirements for Members of Reserve Components Before Deployment or Cancellation of Deployment Related to a Contingency Operation This section would require the service secretaries to provide Reserve Component members or units notification 120 days in advance of being ordered to deployment or being notified that such deployment has been canceled, postponed, or otherwise altered. If the service secretary fails to meet the 120-day notification requirement, the Secretary of the military service must submit, within 30 days after the date of the failure, written notification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives explaining the reason for not meeting the required minimum notification and the units and members of the Reserve Component affected. Section 512--Information to be Provided to Boards Considering Officers for Selective Early Removal from Reserve Active-Status List This section would amend Section 14704 of title 10, United States Code, by aligning the statutory procedures for a board convened to consider officers with sufficient qualifying service for early removal from the reserve active-status list with the procedures required for an Active Duty selective early retirement board. The statutes governing Active Duty selective early retirement boards, sections 638 and 638a of title 10, U.S. Code, provide the Secretary of the military department concerned discretion to limit the zone of officers eligible for selective early retirement based on date of rank and to exclude officers with approved voluntary or involuntary retirements from consideration. The proposed amendment would extend this authority to reserve selective early removal boards. Section 513--Temporary Authority to Maintain Active Status and Inactive Status Lists of Members in the Inactive National Guard This section would provide temporary authority for the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain an active status and an inactive status list of members in the inactive National Guard. This section would also limit the number of members that may be carried on the active list of the inactive National Guard to no more than 4,000 at any one time. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to commission an independent study to evaluate the effectiveness of using an active status list for the inactive National Guard to improve the readiness of the Army and Air National Guard. The study would also assess the impact of using the temporary authority with personnel who have permanent profiles and are non-deployable to improve the time necessary to complete the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) process. The temporary authority under this provision is available between October 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. Prior to implementation of the authority provided by this section, the Secretary of Defense would be required to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the implementation guidance to execute this authority. The Secretary of Defense would also be required to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the results of the study required by this section within 180 days of the completion of the study. Section 514--Review of Requirements and Authorizations for Reserve Component General and Flag Officers in an Active Status This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report the findings and recommendations of a review of the requirements for Reserve Component general and flag officers in an active status. The section would require the report to be provided to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary of Defense's efficiencies review in 2011 projected that such a review would be completed by the end of 2012. However, a lack of funding and incomplete Reserve Component force structure and organizational studies postponed the review. Under current law, 422 such officers are authorized. They are in addition to the Reserve Component general and flag officers on Active Duty and in addition to those general officers serving in the National Guard Bureau or as adjutants general in the Army and Air National Guard. The committee has provided funding for this study in the tables accompanying this Act. Section 515--Feasibility Study on Establishing a Unit of the national Guard in American Samoa and in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a unit of the National Guard in American Samoa and a unit of the National Guard in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Subtitle C--General Service Authorities Section 521--Review of Integrated Disability Evaluation System This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the backlog of Reserve Component cases in the Integrated Disability Evaluation System and consider improvements to the system, and to submit a report on the results of the review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 522--Compliance Requirements for Organizational Climate Assessments This section would require verification and tracking of the organizational climate assessments mandated as part of the Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program, as required by section 572(a)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239). This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the progress in developing, and estimated completion of, a tracking system to ensure compliance. Section 523--Command Responsibility and Accountability for Remains of Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Who Die Outside the United States This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that there is a continuous military command responsibility and accountability for the remains of each deceased member of the military services who died outside of the United States. Section 524--Contents of Transition Assistance Program This section would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring information about disability-related employment and education protections to be provided to service members during the transition assistance program. This section would also require any member who plans to use educational assistance entitlements under title 38 to receive instruction on an overview of those entitlements, courses in post-secondary education appropriate for the member and compatible with the member's goals, and how to finance the member's education. Implementation of this section would occur not later than April 1, 2015. In addition, this section would require, within 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the results of a feasibility study of providing instruction described in subsection (b) of section 1142 of title 10, United States Code, at all overseas locations. Section 525--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel Decisions Relating to Correction of Military Records This section would establish procedures for judicial review for any final decision regarding records correction made under sections 1034(f) or (g) and section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the service member to exhaust administrative relief procedures before seeking judicial review for correction of military records or decisions granted by the boards for the correction of military records. Additionally, this section would require that service members be notified of their right to judicial review and of the statutory time limits associated with judicial review of correction board decisions. Section 526--Establishment And Use of Consistent Definition of Gender- Neutral Occupational Standard For Military Career Designators This section would amend section 543 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103- 160) by adding definitions for gender-neutral occupational standard and military career designator. This section would also consistently apply the gender-neutral occupational standard and military career designator throughout the amended section. Section 527--Expansion and Enhancement of Authorities Relating To Protected Communications of Members of The Armed Forces and Prohibited Retaliatory Actions This section would add rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to the protected communications by members of the Armed Forces with Members of Congress or an Inspector General. In addition, this section would clarify that a communication would not be excluded from protections because of the time, place, method off communication, or the motivation of the individual providing information. Further, this section would require a determination as to whether a prohibited personnel action took place and recommendations for the disposition of the complaint be included in a report of the investigation. This section would require the Secretary of the military department to take disciplinary action against an individual who commits a prohibited personnel action and to correct the record of the person experiencing a prohibited personnel action. This section would also establish as the burden of proof for any investigation by an Inspector General or review by the secretary concerned to be that specified in section 1221(e) of title 5, United States Code. Section 528--Applicability of Medical Examination Requirement Regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury to Proceedings Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice This section would strike subsection (c) of section 1177 of title 10, United States Code. Subsection (c) allows a military service an exception to the requirement for a medical examination in connection with the administrative discharge of a service member, diagnosed with or reasonably asserting post- traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, who is facing court-martial or proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. By taking this action, the committee ensures that service members are not disadvantaged due to combat related injuries. Section 529--Protection of the Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains to Close a Prayer Outside of a Religious Service According to the Traditions, Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing Faith Group This section would permit chaplains in the Armed Forces to close a prayer, outside of a religious service, according to the traditions, expressions, and religious exercises of the chaplain's endorsing faith group. Section 530--Expansion and Implementation of Protections of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members This section would amend section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239), which mandates the accommodation of the beliefs of a service member that stem from the member's conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs and prohibits adverse action against a service member for those beliefs. This section would expand the accommodation and prohibition against adverse action to a member's actions and speech. Furthermore, this section would change the standard that would trigger disciplinary action from beliefs, speech, or action that threaten good order and discipline to beliefs, speech, or action that actually harm good order and discipline. Finally, this section would require that the Secretary of Defense issue regulations to implement section 533 within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 530A--Service Members' Accountability, Rights, and Responsibilities Training This section would establish a set of rights and responsibilities for each member of the Armed Services, and would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a formal means for a service member to acknowledge those rights and responsibilities at certain times in a member's military career. Section 530B--Inspector General of the Department of Defense Review of Separation of Members of the Armed Forces who Made Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault. This section would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct a review to identify all members of the Armed Forces who, since January 1, 2002, were separated from the Armed Forces after making an unrestricted report of sexual assault. The review would seek to determine the circumstances of and the grounds for the separation and whether the separation was in retaliation or influenced by the unrestricted report. The Inspector General would then submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives concerning the results of the review. Section 530C--Report on Data and Information Collected in Connection with Department of Defense Review of Laws, Policies, and Regulations Restricting Service of Female Members of the Armed Forces This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report containing the results and data produced by the review required by section 535 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111- 383), not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Section 530D--Sense of Congress Regarding the Women in Service Implementation Plan This section would express the sense of Congress that no later than September 2015, the Secretaries of the military departments should develop, review, and validate occupational standards in order to assess and assign members of the Armed Forces to units, including Special Operations Forces, and should complete all assessments by January 1, 2016. Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters, Including Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Section 531--Limitations on Convening Authority Discretion Regarding Court-Martial Findings and Sentence This section would amend section 860 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the command prerogative and sole discretion of the court-martial convening authority with regard to the findings and sentence of a court-martial. Specifically, with regard to the findings of a court-martial, this section would prohibit the convening authority from dismissing a finding, or from reducing a guilty finding to guilty of a lesser included offense, except for qualifying offenses. This section would define a qualifying offense as any in which the maximum sentence for the offense does not exceed 2 years and the adjudged court-martial sentence does not include dismissal, a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, or confinement for more than 6 months. This section would exclude any offense under section 920, Rape and Sexual Assault, of title 10, United States Code, from being a qualifying offense. With regard to sentences, this section would prohibit, with some exceptions, the convening authority from reducing, disapproving, commuting, or suspending a mandatory minimum sentence, or an adjudged sentence of confinement or a punitive discharge. With regard to those exceptions, when the accused has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person and upon the recommendation of the trial counsel, this section would allow the convening authority to reduce a sentence below a mandatory minimum sentence, to reduce a confinement sentence, or to disapprove, commute, or suspend the adjudged sentence in whole or in part. This section would also permit the convening authority to reduce, dismiss, or suspend an adjudged sentence of confinement as part of a plea bargain, if a mandatory minimum sentence does not exist. Furthermore, when an adjudged sentence includes punishments in addition to the mandatory minimum sentence, this section would permit the convening authority to modify, disapprove, commute, or suspend those additional punishments. Finally, this section would require that if the convening authority acted to change a finding or sentence, then the convening authority's written rationale for the action would be provided at the same time and made part of the record of trial. Section 532--Elimination of Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Trial By Court-Martial for Additional Offenses Involving Sex-Related Crimes This section would add sexual assault and sexual assault of a child, offenses covered respectively by section 920(b) and section 920b(b) of title 10, United States Code, to the list of offenses in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that may be tried and punished at any time without limitation. This section would apply to offenses committed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 533--Discharge or Dismissal for Certain Sex-Related Offenses and Trial of Offenses by General Courts-Martial This section would establish dismissal (for officers, commissioned warrant officers, cadets, and midshipmen) or dishonorable discharge (for enlisted personnel and warrant officers who are not commissioned) as the mandatory minimum sentence for a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice who is convicted by court-martial of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or an attempt to commit those offenses. Given such mandatory minimum sentences, this section would also limit jurisdiction for trial of the cited offenses to only a general court-martial. The changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice made by this section would be effective 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and apply to offenses committed after that date. This section would also require the independent Response Systems Panel established by section 576(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to assess the appropriateness of establishing additional mandatory minimum sentences for other offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Furthermore, this section would require the independent Judicial Proceedings Panel established by section 576(a)(2) of Public Law 112-239 to assess the implementation and effect of mandatory minimum sentences established by this section. Section 534--Regulations Regarding Consideration of Application for Permanent Change of Station or Unit Transfer by Victims of Sexual Assault This section would require the Secretary concerned to issue regulations to provide for timely determination and action on an application for consideration of a change of station or unit transfer submitted by a member of the Armed Forces serving on Active Duty who is a victim of sexual assault. Section 535--Consideration of Need for, and Authority to Provide for, Temporary Administrative Reassignment or Removal of a Member on Active Duty Who is Accused of Committing a Sexual Assault or Related Offense This section would authorize the Secretary concerned to provide guidance for commanders regarding authority for temporary reassignment or removal of an individual from a position of authority who is alleged to have committed a sexual assault or other sex-related offense under section 920, 920a, 920b or 920c of title 10, United States Code. Further, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to include information on the use of such authority as part of training for new and prospective commanders. Section 536--Victims' Counsel for Victims of Sex-Related Offenses and Related Provisions This section would require Victims' Counsels, who would be qualified and specially trained lawyers in each of the Armed Forces, to be made available to provide legal assistance to victims of sex-related offenses, which include rape and sexual assault, stalking, and rape and sexual assault of a child. The legal assistance authorized by this section would include accompanying the victim at any proceedings related to the reporting, military investigation, and military prosecution of the sex-related offense, as well as legal consultation on the military justice system, the potential criminal liability of the victim stemming from the sex-related offense, the Victim Witness Assistance Program, potential civil litigation by the victim, medical support, and mental health counseling. This section would allow the victim the option of declining the assistance without prejudicing a later decision to seek such assistance. This section would require Victim's Counsels to be available within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives with a report on how the Armed Forces will implement this section. The report would be due within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Furthermore, this section would require the independent Response Systems Panel, established by section 576(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to assess whether the legal assistance authorized by this section should be expanded to include legal standing to represent the victim during investigative and military justice proceedings. Finally, this section would task the independent Judicial Proceedings Panel established by section 576(a)(2) of the cited public law to assess the implementation and effect of the Victims' Counsel program established by this section. Section 537--Inspector General Investigation of Allegations of Retaliatory Personnel Actions Taken in Response to Making Protected Communications Regarding Sexual Assault The section would add rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to the protected communications of members of the Armed Forces with Members of Congress or an Inspector General. Section 538--Secretary Defense Report on Role of Commanders in Military Justice Process This section would require the Secretary of Defense to assess the current role and authorities of commanders in the administration of military justice and the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This section would also require the Secretary to report the assessment, together with his recommendation whether the role and authorities of commanders should be further modified or repealed, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 539--Review and Policy Regarding Department of Defense Investigative Practices in Response to Allegations of Sex-Related Offenses This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to review of the practices of military criminal investigative organizations regarding the investigation of alleged sex- related offenses involving members of the Armed Forces. The review would include an assessment of the extent to which the investigative organizations make a recommendation on whether an allegation of a sex-related offense appears founded or unfounded. This section would also require the Secretary to develop a uniform policy regarding the use of case determinations by the investigative organizations to record the results of the investigation of a sex-related offense. In developing the policy the Secretary shall consider the feasibility of adopting case determination methods used by non- military law enforcement agencies. Section 540--Uniform Training and Education Programs for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a uniform curriculum, to include lesson plans, to ensure that sexual assault prevention and response training and education for members of the Armed Forces are uniform across the Department of Defense. Section 541--Development of Selection Criteria for Assignment as Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Program Managers, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish selection qualifications for members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees for assignment to duty as Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Program Managers, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates. In addition, this section would require the Secretary of each military department to assign at least one Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent to each brigade or equivalent unless the Secretary of Defense determines that it is more practicable and effective for assignment to other units. This section would also require that personnel assigned as Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent be members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Further, this section would require the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent be trained and certified. Section 542--Extension of Crime Victims' Rights to Victims of Offenses Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice This section would set out the rights of a person who was a victim of an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The articulated rights and procedures are similar, but not identical to those set forth in section 3771 of title 18, United States Code. The section would also require that, within 1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense would not only submit to the President recommended changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial needed to carry out this section, but would also prescribe regulations to promote compliance with the section. Finally, the section would task the independent panel established by the Secretary of Defense under section 576(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to assess the feasibility and appropriateness of incorporating into the Uniform Code of Military Justice additional crime victims' rights set out in section 3771, but not incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice by this section. Section 543--Defense Counsel Interview of Complaining Witnesses in Presence of Counsel for the Complaining Witnesses or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate This section would require that if the defense counsel in connection with proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice desires to interview a complaining witness, then the request for the interview must be placed through the trial counsel. Furthermore, if the defense counsel interviews the complaining witness, the section would require that the interview take place in the presence of the counsel for the witness or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate. Section 544--Participation by Complaining Witness in Clemency Phase of Courts-Martial Process This section would enable a complaining witness, who is a person who has suffered a direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of an offense, to submit matters for consideration by the convening authority following a court-martial and prior to the convening authority taking action on the findings or sentence of that court- martial. Section 545--Eight-Day Incident Reporting Requirement in Response to Unrestricted Report of Sexual Assault in Which the Victim is a Member of the Armed Forces This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a policy for a written incident report, by a person designated by the Secretary, to detail the actions taken or in progress to provide the victim of a sexual assault the necessary care and support, to refer the alleged assault to the proper military criminal investigative organization, and to provide initial notification to the chain of command above the unit in which the victim served, when such notification had not already taken place. This section would require the incident report to be provided within 8 days of the unrestricted report of a sexual assault. Furthermore, this section would require that the Secretary of Defense prescribe regulations to carry out the policy within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 546--Amendment to Manual for Courts-Martial to Eliminate Considerations Relating to Character and Military Service of Accused in Initial Disposition of Sex-Related Offenses This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act, to recommend to the President a change to the Manual for Courts-Martial that would strike the words ``the character and the military service of the accused'' from the list of factors contained in the manual's Rule 306, Initial Disposition, when that rule was applied to sex-related offenses. Section 547--Inclusion of Letter of Reprimands, Nonpunitive Letter of Reprimands and Counseling Statements This section, in order to provide increased visibility to commanders and to identify and prevent trends of unacceptable behavior at an early stage, would direct the Secretary of Defense to require commanders to include letters of reprimand, nonpunitive letters of action, and counseling statements involving substantiated cases of sexual harassment or sexual assault in the performance evaluation of a member of the Armed Forces. Section 548--Enhanced Protections for Prospective Members and New Members of the Armed Forces During Entry-Level Processing and Training This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a policy that uniformly defines and prescribes what constitutes an inappropriate and prohibited relationship, communication, conduct, or contact, including when such an action is consensual, between certain members of the Armed Forces, such as recruiters, military personnel assigned to a military entrance processing center, or drill instructors in basic training centers, and a prospective member of the Armed Forces or a member undergoing entry-level processing or training. This section would also require that substantiated violations of the policy by a member would result in the member being automatically processed for administrative separation from military service. Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to propose an amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would address violations of the policy. Section 549--Independent Reviews and Assessments of Uniform Code of Military Justice and Judicial Proceedings of Sexual Assault Cases This section would require the independent panel established under section 576(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to assess the impact, if any, that removing from the chain of command the disposition authority for charges preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice would have on overall reporting and prosecution of sexual assault cases. This section would also require the independent panel to review the report of the Secretary of Defense, which is mandated by section 538 of this Act, on the role of military commanders in the military justice system. Finally, this section would require the independent panel to render its report of findings and recommendations within 1 year of the panel's first meeting. Section 550--Review of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity Role in Sexual Harassment Cases This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity for the purposes of identifying resource and personnel gaps in the office, the role of the office in sexual harassment cases, and evaluating how the office works with the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to address sexual assault in the Armed Forces. Subtitle E--Military Family Readiness Section 551--Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses of Members of the Armed Forces Who Serve in Combat Zones This section would require the design of a spouse-of-a- combat veteran lapel button, approved by the Secretary of Defense, to identify and recognize the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces who is serving or has served in a combat zone for a period of more than 30 days. In addition, this section would authorize the Secretary concerned to use appropriated funds to procure spouse-of-a-combat-veteran lapel buttons and to provide for their presentation to eligible spouses of members. Section 552--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements For Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces This section would amend title II of the Service Members Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 521) to require a court that issued a temporary custody order based solely on the deployment or anticipated deployment of a service member to reinstate the custody order that was in effect immediately preceding the temporary order, unless the court finds reinstatement is not in the best interest of the child. This section would also prohibit a court from using deployment or the possibility of deployment as the sole factor when determining the best interest of a child. Section 553--Treatment of Relocation of Members of the Armed Forces for Active Duty for Purposes of Mortgage Refinancing This section would amend section 303 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to expand certain mortgage protections for service members, surviving spouses, and veterans; to make knowing violations of these protections a criminal offense; and to increase civil penalties for violations of these protections. Section 554--Family Support Programs for Immediate Family Members of Members of the Armed Forces Assigned to Special Operations Forces This section would authorize the Commander, United States Special Operations Command, consistent with regulations that the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, to conduct up to three pilot programs to assess the feasibility and benefits of providing family support activities for the immediate family members of the Armed Forces assigned to special operations forces. This section would require that family support programs provided by pilot programs not duplicate those family support programs being provided by the Secretary of a military department. This section also would authorize the pilot programs for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. It is the committee's intent is that any pilot program initiated under this section be completed by the end of fiscal year 2016. The section would also limit to $5.0 million the amount that may be spent on the pilot programs in a fiscal year, and require the Commander, United States Special Operations Command to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the completion of a pilot program initiated under this section. Subtitle F--Education and Training Opportunities and Administration Section 561--Inclusion of Freely Associated States within Scope of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program This section would amend section 2031(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of a military department to establish and maintain a unit of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps at a secondary education institution in the Freely Associated States, if the conditions of section 2031(b) of title 10, United States Code, are met. Section 562--Improved Climate Assessments and Dissemination and Tracking of Results This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the results of command climate assessments are provided to the relevant commander and the next higher level of command. This section would also require the Secretary to include in the performance evaluation of a commander evidence of compliance with the requirements for conducting climate assessments. Additionally, this section would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to develop a system to track command compliance. Unit commanders would be required to develop a compliance report that will include an overview of the unit members' concerns, data showing how the leadership is perceived and a detailed plan on how leadership will address unit concerns. Section 563--Service-wide 360 Assessments This section would require the Secretaries of the military departments to develop an assessment program modeled after the current Department of the Army Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback program (``360-degree approach'') including individual counseling as part of the performance evaluation process. Section 564--Health Welfare Inspections This section would require the Secretary of each military department to conduct health and welfare inspections on a monthly basis to ensure and maintain security, military readiness, and good order and discipline. Section 565--Review of Security of Military Installations, Including Barracks and multi-family residences. This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of security measures on military installations specifically with regard to barracks and multi-family housing units. Elements of the study would include identifying security gaps on military installations, evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of 24-hour electronic monitoring or placing security guards at points of entry to barracks and military family housing. Section 566--Enhancement of Mechanisms to Correlate Skills and Training for Military Occupational Specialties with Skills and Training Required for Civilian Certification and Licenses This section would require the Secretaries of the military departments to make information on civilian credentialing opportunities available to members of the Armed Forces, including during the transition assistance program. This section would also require the Secretaries of the military departments to make available to accredited civilian credentialing agencies information on military courses and skills. Section 567--Use of Educational Assistance for Courses in Pursuit of Civilian Certifications or Licenses This section would amend section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, by placing limitations on when educational assistance may be used to pursue civilian certifications and licenses. This section would also authorize the use of educational assistance authorities under sections 2007, 2015, 106A, 2183, 1606 and 1607 of title 10, United States Code, to pursue civilian certifications and licenses. Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education Section 571--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees This section would authorize $20.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to local educational agencies (LEAs) that are impacted by the enrollment of dependent children of military members and Department civilian employees. This section would also authorize $5.0 million for assistance to LEAs with significant changes in enrollment of school-aged dependents of military members and civilian employees due to base closures, force structure changes, or force relocations. Furthermore, this section would extend the authority for assistance to LEAs impacted by base closures, force structure changes, or force relocations by 1 year to September 30, 2015. Section 572--Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement and Transition of Military Dependent Students This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide grant assistance to non-profit organizations that provide services to improve the academic achievement of military dependent students, including those non-profit organizations whose programs focus on increasing the civic responsibility of military dependent students and their understanding of the Federal Government through direct exposure to the Government. Section 573--Treatment of Tuition Payments Received for Virtual Elementary and Secondary Education Component of Department of Defense Education Program This section would amend section 2164(l) of title 10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to retain the tuition payments made by participants in the Department of Defense virtual elementary and secondary education programs. The retained tuition would be used to provide support for the virtual education programs authorized by section 2164(l). Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards Section 581--Fraudulent Representations about Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals This section would amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulently claiming to be a recipient of certain decorations or medals with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits a crime. Section 582--Repeal of Limitation on Number of Medals of Honor That May Be Awarded to the same Member of the Armed Forces This section would authorize a service member to receive a Medal of Honor for each subsequent valorous act that results in the award of a Medal of Honor. Section 583--Standardization of Time-Limits for Recommending and Awarding Medal of Honor, Distinguished-Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, and Distinguished-Service Medal This section would modify the Army and Air Force time limits to 3 years for recommending and 5 years for awarding a soldier or airman a Medal of Honor, Service Cross, or Distinguished-Service Medal, thereby standardizing those limits for all services. Section 584--Recodification and Revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll Requirements This section would require the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to establish and maintain a Medal of Honor Roll and enter the name of each person on the roll who has served on Active Duty in the Armed Forces and who has been awarded the Medal of Honor. This section would also require the Secretary concerned to furnish the Secretary of Veterans Affairs a certified copy of each certification of enrollment. This section would repeal sections 1560 and 1561 of title 38, United States Code. Section 585--Treatment of Victims of the Attacks at Recruiting Station in Little Rock, Arkansas, and at Fort Hood, Texas This section would require the Secretary of the military department concerned to award the Purple Heart to members of the Armed Forces who were killed or wounded in the attacks that occurred at the recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, and at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009. Furthermore, this section would deem the members of the Armed Forces killed or wounded in those attacks to have been killed or injured in a combat zone and the Department of Defense civilians to have been killed or wounded in a contingency operation. The effect would be to make those members and civilians eligible for additional monetary benefits. Section 586--Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to award the Army Combat Action Badge to a person who, while a member of the Army, participated in combat during which the person personally engaged, or was personnally engaged by, the enemy at any time during the period beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on September 18, 2001. Section 587--Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions Pertaining to Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on the Navy review, findings, and actions pertaining to the Medal of Honor nomination of Sergeant Rafael Peralta to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Section 588--Authorization For Award Of The Distinguished-Service Cross To Sergeant First Class Robert F. Keiser For Acts Of Valor During The Korean War This section would waive the statutory time limitation under section 3144 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service Cross to Robert F. Keiser, who served in the United States Army during the Korean War. The committee takes this action based on the written confirmation by the Secretary of the Army that the actions of Robert F. Keiser merit the award of the Distinguished Service Cross. Subtitle I--Other Matters Section 591--Revision of Specified Senior Military Colleges to Reflect Consolidation of North Georgia College and State University and Gainesville State College This section would amend section 2111a(f) of title 10, United States Code, to reflect the name change of North Georgia College and State University to The University of North Georgia. Section 592--Authority to Enter into Concessions Contracts at Army National Military Cemeteries This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter into concession contracts for transportation, interpretative, and other services in support of visitors at Arlington National Cemetery and the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. This section would also require that each concession contract include terms that the Secretary determines are necessary to ensure the protection, dignity, and solemnity of the cemetery at which services are provided. Furthermore, the section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from instituting a concession contract for operation of the gift shop at Arlington National Cemetery without subsequent authorization. In providing for transportation services at Arlington National Cemetery, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that service provides visitors with access to the Custis Lee Mansion. Section 593--Commission on Military Behavioral Health and Disciplinary Issues This section would establish a 10-member commission to study whether the Department of Defenses' mechanisms for disciplinary action adequately address the impact of service- connected mental disorders and traumatic brain injury. Specifically, this section would require the examination of those members diagnosed with or reasonably asserting post- traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury that have been deployed overseas in support of a contingency operation during the previous 24 months, and how that injury or deployment may constitute matters in extenuation that relate to the basis for administrative separation under conditions other than honorable or the overall characterization of service of the member as other than honorable. Section 594--Commission on Service to the Nation This section would establish a commission to be known as the ``Commission on Service to the Nation'' to study the effects of warfare on members of the Armed Forces, their families, and communities, and the gaps between the military and the rest of civilian society. TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS OVERVIEW The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible compensation programs are central to maintaining a high- quality, All-Volunteer, combat-ready force. Accordingly, the committee supports a 1.8 percent military pay raise for fiscal year 2014, in accordance with current law, in order for military pay raises to keep pace with the pay increases in the private sector as measured by the Employment Cost Index. The committee believes that future pay-raise proposals that are below the Employment Cost Index may have long term affects on the recruiting and retention of a high-quality All-Volunteer Force. Additionally, to sustain the All-Volunteer Force, the committee recommends that the authorities for a wide array of bonuses, special and incentive pays, and other compensation benefits set to expire on December 31, 2013, be extended for an additional year. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Military Exchanges, Commissaries, and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities The committee considers the military exchanges, commissaries, and the morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) activities to be quality of life benefits that are important to the welfare of military communities around the world and key factors in maintaining the All-Volunteer Force. The committee remains concerned that the growing fiscal pressures on the Department of Defense and the military services will increase efforts to reduce or divert to other priorities the minimal amount of appropriated funding the military resale community receives. Such a reduction would reduce the benefit to patrons and dividends to MRW activities, and adversely impact the quality of life for service members and their families. The committee commends the commissaries for being forward-leaning in reducing overhead costs and increasing internal efficiencies to maintain the benefit for military and retiree patrons with reduced appropriated funding. The committee encourages the military resale community and MWR activities to continue to refine their business processes and create efficiencies in order to reduce the reliance on appropriated funding, and maintain and protect the important quality of life benefit these programs have brought to the service members and their families. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances Section 601--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary Increase in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances This section would extend for 1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel. Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces This section would extend the authority for the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high-priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, income replacement payments for Reserve Component members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for Active Duty service, and the authority to reimburse travel expenses for inactive duty training outside of normal commuting distance until December 31, 2014. Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties until December 31, 2014. Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities for Nuclear Officers This section would extend the authority for the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2014. Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities This section would extend the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus authority for officers, the special bonus and incentive pay authority for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities, the special health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities, hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and the retention bonus for members with critical military skills or assigned to high- priority units until December 31, 2014. Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for active members, the accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates until December 31, 2014. Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authority to Provide Incentive Pay for Members of Precommissioning Programs Pursuing Foreign Language Proficiency This section would authorize payment of incentive pay for members of pre-commissioning programs who are pursuing foreign language proficiency. Section 617--Authority to Provide Bonus to Certain Cadets and Midshipmen Enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps This section would extend from December 31, 2012, until December 31, 2015, the authority for a student attending the senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Leaders Course, who executes a written agreement to accept a commission or an appointment as an Officer of the Armed Forces and to serve on Active Duty, to receive a bonus. Subtitle C--Disability, Retired Pay, Survivor, and Transitional Benefits Section 621--Transitional Compensation and Other Benefits for Dependents of Certain Members Separated for Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice This section would amend section 1059 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the provision of transitional compensation and other benefits for the dependent of a member of the Armed Forces when the member, after completing more than 20 years of service, is separated from the Armed Forces because of a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and forfeits all pay and allowances. Section 622--Prevention of Retired Pay Inversion for Members Whose Retired Pay is Computed Using High-Three Average This section would clarify the application of the Tower amendment, section 1401a(f) of title 10, United States Code, to the computation of retired pay for service members who first entered military service on or after September 8, 1980. The Tower amendment was enacted in 1975 to prevent the loss of military retired pay for members who were eligible to retire earlier than their actual retirement date under the Final Pay Retirement System. The High-36 Retirement System enacted in 1980 obviated the need for application of the Tower amendment. This section would clarify that Tower amendment does not apply in the application of the High-36 retirement calculations, but will continue to be used when calculating retired pay under the Final Pay Retirement System. Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Benefits and Operations Section 631--Expansion of Protection of Employees of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities from Reprisals This section would amend section 1587(b) of title 10, United States Code, to include ``threaten to take'' as an adverse personnel action. This amendment would bring whistleblower protections for non-appropriated fund instrumentality employees in line with protections afforded to members of the Armed Forces. Section 632--Purchase of Sustainable Products, Local Food Products, and Recyclable Materials for Resale in Commissary and Exchange Store Systems This section would require the governing body giving oversight and management direction to the military exchange and commissary systems in accordance with section 2481(c) of title 10, United States Code, to establish guidelines for the identification of fresh meat, poultry, seafood, produce, and other products raised or produced through sustainable methods that are not harmful to the ecology. This section would require the guidelines to be established not later than 2 years from the date of the enactment of this Act. The committee believes the guidelines should consider the impact of implementing sustainable product policies on the cost of goods and the pricing of the products offered to patrons. This section would also require the governing body to establish, not later than September 30, 2018, goals for all exchange and commissary stores to purchase sustainable products, local food products, and recyclable materials. Section 633--Correction of Obsolete References to Certain Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities This section would amend section 2105(c) of title 5, United States Code, to strike obsolete Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities references to the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service and Navy Ships Stores Ashore, and update with an accurate title of the Navy Ships Store Program. Subtitle E--Other Matters Section 641--Authority to Provide Certain Expenses for Care and Disposition of Human Remains Retained by the Department of Defense for Forensic Pathology Investigation This section would amend sections 1481 and 1482 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to pay for expenses incident to death for certain decedents whose deaths are investigated by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES) under section 1471 of title 10, United States Code, when payment of such expenses is not otherwise authorized by law. Currently, when the AFMES removes decedent remains to a Department of Defense mortuary for a forensic pathology investigation pursuant to section 1471, title 10, United States Code, some decedent's next of kin must pay for the mortuary services, including transportation costs, which may otherwise not be available under section 1482 of title 10, at the conclusion of the investigation. Section 642--Provision of Status Under Law by Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve Components as Veterans This section would honor as veterans those retired members of the Reserve Components who, because of age, are not yet eligible to receive retired pay. This honorary designation as a veteran would not entitle the retiree to any benefit. Section 643--Survey of Military Pay and Benefits Preferences This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out an anonymous survey of random members of the Armed Forces regarding pay and benefits, including the value that members place on forms of compensation, relative to one another, including basic pay, allowances for housing, bonuses and special pay, healthcare benefits, and retirement pay. TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS OVERVIEW The committee continues to strongly support a high-quality and cost-effective military health system that provides members of the Armed Forces, retirees, survivors, and their families access to quality health care. The committee remains committed to ensuring service members and their families have access to mental health care and that every opportunity is utilized to screen service members for mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury. In that regard, the committee mandated periodic mental health assessments for all service members serving on Active Duty and increased the frequency of mental health assessments for deployed personnel. The committee also required the Department of Defense to conduct research focused on drug development to halt neurodegeneration following traumatic brain injury. To further the committee's focus on addressing suicide by members of the Armed Forces, the Department is authorized to carry out collaborative programs to respond to suicide and combat stress, substance addiction, risk-taking behaviors, and family violence. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Additional Therapeutic Treatment Activities Available Under Exceptional Care Health Option The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to explore the possibility of providing additional rehabilitative therapies pursuant to subsection (a)(17) of section 1077 of title 10, United States Code, or through inclusion within the Exceptional Care Health Option (ECHO) program to expand the utilization of non-traditional modalities, including a horse, balance board, ball, bolster, and bench. The Secretary is required to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 1, 2014, on the results of his review to expand additional therapeutic treatment activities. Administration of Blood Products On-board U.S. Medical Evacuation Aircraft The committee recognizes the major advances in military medicine that have significantly reduced the mortality rate among combat wounded personnel. The most critical time to respond to battlefield casualties remains the first hour after injury, the so-called golden hour. The committee recognizes that the military services have committed tremendous resources and training in order to provide service members the best possible treatment at the point of injury. The committee is aware of a recent demonstration project conducted by a limited number of Army MEDEVAC aviation components in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to administer blood products to injured soldiers during the soldiers' en-route medical care and movement to a medical facility. Preliminary data suggest that these in-flight blood transfusions have greatly increased the probability of survival for injured soldiers. The committee understands the Army as a result has expanded this capability across MEDEVAC units in the operational area. The committee is interested in understanding the underpinning analysis that was conducted to support this change. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the program, including the timeline toward outfitting MEDEVAC aviation units with blood products to improve en-route patient care. Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense and the military services recognize the deleterious effects of alcohol abuse on service members, families and military readiness. However, the committee remains concerned with the incidence of alcohol abuse by members of the military and their families. The committee believes that applying best practices across the military services may allow for more effective alcohol abuse prevention programs. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the military services, within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense committees, a report on alcohol abuse prevention programs to include a cost benefit analysis detailing the most effective methods for preventing alcohol abuse. Department of Defense and Early Autism Diagnosis and Intervention for Military Families The committee commends the Department of Defense for its continued efforts to ensure that military families have access to autism diagnosis, intervention, and treatment services. The committee encourages the Department to continue to assist military families with autistic children to receive the full and expanding range of evidence-based intervention and treatment approaches. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that sufficient priority is given to efforts to provide services specifically for autistic children of military families living in rural or under-served communities. Efforts to Advance Lower Extremity Prosthetics and Orthotics Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) have been the number one threat to the men and women who have served and are currently serving in contingency operations in the Middle East. The committee understands that the incidence of significant traumatic injuries to lower extremities as a result of IED blasts has led to innovative and improved care of these injuries. Recognizing that lower extremity injuries often require long-term and continuous care, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue looking for new and innovative prosthetic and orthopedic technologies to assist service members adapting to these significant injuries. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the Department of Defense's effort to advance lower extremity prosthetics and orthotics, and the process by which such advancements are made available to members of the Armed Forces in a timely manner. This report should also include information on research efforts and funding for powered prosthetics and orthotics for service members with a lower extremity amputation or other lower extremity injuries with limb salvage. The Secretary of Defense shall submit the report within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Efforts to Improve Treatment for Post Traumatic Stress and Traumatic Brain Injury The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has made great strides in research and development of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) over the past decade. The current budget climate will have an impact on continued research and development efforts and the committee urges the Department to consider a systems medicine approach that will better leverage the limited resources that will be available in the future. Systems medicine promotes a comprehensive, inter-disciplinary approach that includes clinical care, professional education, and the interaction between genetics, the external environment, and individual behaviors to focus on prevention of diseases. Many large research universities and hospitals have found that employing systems medicine has made tremendous progress on informing its research efforts. The committee believes that such a comprehensive approach may improve the research and development of PTSD and TBI to better support our service members. Healthy Base Initiative The committee recognizes that a healthy and fit force is essential as service members must be physically prepared to deploy in a moment's notice, often to locations that are extremely austere and with demanding conditions. The committee commends the Department of Defense for initiating its Healthy Base Initiative (HBI) demonstration program which promotes and supports the overall health and wellness of service members, families, and civilians through improved nutritional choices, increased physical activity, obesity reduction and control, and efforts to decrease tobacco use. In addition, the committee commends the Department of the Army for initiating the Performance Triad designed to improve stamina, readiness and health through enhanced activity and improved nutrition and sleep. The committee believes that supporting healthy lifestyle choices will positively impact troop and family readiness and may result in an overall increase in the health of service members and their families. Military Health System Governance Reform Report The committee received the March 2013 report of the Department of Defense on the Military Health System governance reform implementation plan as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). That public law required that the report provide detailed goals that were to be achieved while carrying out reforms. Those reforms included improving clinical and business practices and reducing costs, infrastructure, and personnel. The report also required a detailed schedule for meeting the goals. While the goals for the reform of the Military Health System included in the report address the statutory requirements, the report does not clearly describe the linkage of the goals to the responsibilities of the newly established Defense Heath Agency. In addition, the report neither provides the information to understand how the Department developed its goals, nor did the report provide a detailed schedule as required. The establishment of a Defense Health Agency is a major transformation, and its success is dependent upon greater system integration. The committee remains concerned that the Defense Health Agency could result in greater costs and personnel expenditures if the goals are not clearly linked to the roles and responsibilities of the Agency, and if a complete schedule is not clearly linked to the goals. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to address the shortcomings identified above with the required elements of the report that is due not later than June 30, 2013, or by separate letter to the committee within 30 days of the latter suspense. Report on Prostate Cancer Imaging Research The committee notes the encouragement to the Department of Defense to intensify research on the advancement of prostate imaging technologies that is contained on page 180 of House Report 112-479, the report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310). The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Service of the Senate and the House of Representatives on research either conducted by or funded by the Department of Defense to advance technology for the detection of prostate cancer. Report on Provider Referrals for Ancillary Services Under TRICARE The committee remains concerned with the long term viability of the TRICARE benefit for service members and their families. In that regard the committee is committed to ensuring that adequate protections are in place to make certain that the Department of Defense is not paying excessive costs for ancillary services through referrals by TRICARE providers. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, no later than April 1, 2014, to report to the committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the policies and procedures in place to avoid paying excessive costs for provider referred ancillary services under TRICARE and the effectiveness of such policies and procedures in avoiding excessive costs. Review of the Military Health System Medical Training Consolidation The Services established a memorandum of agreement for the governance of the recently established Medical Education and Training Campus (METC) in 2011. The establishment of METC consolidated the Department of Defense's five enlisted medical training campuses at one location in San Antonio, Texas and, according to the Department of Defense, over half of its programs of instruction. While the Department has reported it realized savings from this effort, it remains unclear if there are additional efficiencies to be gained in medical training consolidation. Further, it is unclear whether the individual programs of instruction have been consolidated into a joint program of instruction. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the consolidation of the Department of Defense's medical training. The review should include at an minimum: (1) the extent to which enlisted and officer medical training have been consolidated and standardized and what, if any, financial savings has the Department achieved; (2) the extent to which there are further opportunities for consolidation of enlisted medical training; (3) the extent to which the Department has examined consolidation of officer medical training, including an estimate of potential financial savings; and (4) an assessment of the lessons learned from the Medical Education and Training Campus consolidation that could apply to future consolidation efforts in the military health system's governance. The Comptroller General shall submit the results of the review no later than April 18, 2014 to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Therapeutic Service Dog Training Program The committee is aware that recovering service members in treatment at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE) and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center are reporting improvement in their symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) when participating in the service dog training programs currently operating in those facilities. In addition, clinical observations support the benefits of this animal-assisted therapy modality to psychologically injured service members, including: decreased depressive symptoms, improved emotional regulation, improved sleep patterns, a greater sense of purpose, better reintegration into their communities, pain reduction, and improved parenting skills. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consider making this promising new therapeutic intervention more available to service members suffering from the invisible wounds of PTSD and TBI. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct such studies as may be necessary to evaluate the efficacy of service dog training as an adjunctive treatment for PTSD and TBI and to maximize the therapeutic benefits to recovering members who participate in the programs. The committee further directs the Secretary to provide a report not later than March 1, 2015 to update the congressional defense committees on this research. Trauma Clinical Research Repository The committee recognizes that trauma-related deaths impact our military services, as well as the general civilian population. The committee understands that advancements in trauma care are the results of research conducted across the public-private spectrum by Federal, academic, and private institutions. The life-saving impact of this research can be seen on the battlefield and in civilian trauma. However, in an era of constrained medical research budgets and a shrinking defense budget, it is imperative that trauma research funding be used efficiently and for the greatest good. The committee believes that to continue the advancement in trauma care the collective research data should be maintained centrally so it can be accessed by both public and private researchers for future use. A trauma clinical research repository would provide an opportunity to make widely available the data resulting from current and future clinical trauma research in both the military and civilian sectors that could lead to significant advances in treatment and improved outcomes in both the military and civilian populations. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to work with other Federal agencies and the private sector to establish a trauma clinical research repository to share and maximize critical trauma research data. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits Section 701--Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed Forces This section would amend section 1074m of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide person-to-person mental health screenings once during each 180- day period in which a member is deployed. Section 702--Periodic Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed Forces This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide periodic mental health assessments to each member of the Armed Forces serving on Active Duty. Subtitle B--Health Care Administration Section 711--Future Availability of TRICARE Prime for Certain Beneficiaries Enrolled in TRICARE Prime This section would authorize a one time opt-in to TRICARE Prime for beneficiaries who are eligible for TRICARE Prime as of September 30, 2013, provided the beneficiary remains in the same ZIP Code as the ZIP Code the beneficiary resided in at the time of the opt-in, notwithstanding eligibility for enrollment based on the location at which the beneficiary resides. Section 712--Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the Military Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities This section would permit the Secretaries of the military departments to establish cooperative health care arrangements and agreements between military installations and local and regional non-military health care entities. Section 713--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Integrated Electronic Health Record Program This section would limit the amount of funds the Secretary of Defense may obligate or expend for procurement, or research, development, test and evaluation of the integrated electronic health record until 30 days after the date that the Secretary submits a report detailing an analysis of alternatives for the plan of the Secretary to proceed with such program. Section 714--Pilot Program on Increased Third-Party Collection Reimbursements in Military Medical Treatment Facilities This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program for 3 years at military installations to assess the feasibility of using revenue-cycle management processes, including cash flow management and accounts- receivable processes to increase amounts collected by military treatment facilities from third party payers. The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report of the results of the pilot program to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after completion of the pilot program. Subtitle C--Other Matters Section 721--Display of Budget Information for Embedded Mental Health Providers of the Reserve Components This section would require the Secretary of Defense to include in the documents that support the President's annual budget, a budget justification display for embedded mental health providers of the Reserve Components that includes the amount for each component. Section 722--Authority of Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences to Enter Into Contracts and Agreements and Make Grants to Other Nonprofit Entities This section would clarify the authority of the Secretary of Defense, with regard to the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, to enter into contracts and agreements and make grants to nonprofit entities. Section 723--Mental Health Support for Military Personnel and Families This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out collaborative programs to respond to suicide and combat stress related arrest rates of members of the Armed Forces as well as to train Active Duty members to recognize and respond to combat stress disorder, suicide risk, substance addiction, risk taking behaviors, and family violence. Section 724--Research Regarding Hydrocephalus This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to consider selecting research projects relating to hydrocephalus under the Peer Review Medical Research Program. Section 725--Traumatic Brain Injury Research This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out research, test, and evaluation activities regarding drug development to halt neurodegeneration following traumatic brain injury. TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Advanced Technical Exploitation Program The committee is aware the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) is seeking to alter the acquisition strategy for the follow-on contract for the Advanced Technical Exploitation Program (ATEP). The committee is also aware that the objective of this follow-on contract, referred to as ATEP II, is ``to provide contract services to support the NASIC mission in Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT) and non-nuclear Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT) Tasking, Collection, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination activities. This includes up to 24x7 intelligence operations, reach-back advanced data exploitation support, and cutting-edge GEOINT and MASINT research and development for NASIC and mission partners throughout the Department of Defense and intelligence communities.'' The committee is also aware that the Air Force intends to use a lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) acquisition strategy for ATEP II and is planning to set this contract aside for small business concerns. The committee is concerned that the scope, scale, complexity and mission criticality of this work is inappropriate for an LPTA source selection and may not be well-suited for small business participation at the prime contract level. When those strategies are combined and used to procure complex, mission critical services, the risk of acquisition failure rises. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to examine the Air Force's acquisition strategy related to provision of these services and to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2013, that includes a detailed description of the following: (1) the acquisition strategy; (2) rationale and justification for using such strategy; (3) summary of market research methodology and findings performed during the development of the acquisition strategy; (4) assessment of risks related to such strategy; and (5) a description of the management and oversight structure necessary to ensure successful performance of the contracted activity throughout the period of performance. Commercial Items Pricing Information The committee remains confident that sections 2379 and 2306a(d) of title 10, United States Code, provide the Department of Defense with adequate authority for obtaining cost and pricing information to evaluate the price reasonableness of certain commercial items that are procured to support a major system, and the committee looks forward to issuance of the guidance mandated by section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) on use of that authority. The committee notes that inconsistent use of the authority granted by sections 2379 and 2306a(d) within the Department of Defense continues to foster uncertainty among vendors, as recently evidenced by factors leading to the corrective action taken by the Department of the Army in amending its solicitation for overhaul services for certain fuel pumps in light of a protest filed with the Government Accountability Office. The committee expects that the Department of Defense's forthcoming guidance and the plan of action for training and developing the acquisition workforce, also required by section 831 of Public Law 112-239, will address inconsistencies in exercising the authority granted by sections 2379 and 2306a(d) to avert further complications in contracting for commercial items. Competition in Air Force Network-Centric Solutions Contracts The committee is aware of reports that the Air Force may be inappropriately using sole source and brand name procurement solicitations and contract awards in the Network-Centric Solutions (NETCENTS), Air Force contract vehicles. The committee is concerned that these decisions may be negatively impacting competition between NETCENTS-1 and NETCENTS-2 contract vehicles. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to review NETCENTS vehicles and provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The review should detail the Air Force's use of ``sole source'' and ``brand name only'' procurement solicitations and contract awards under NETCENTS-1 and NETCENTS-2 contracts, as well as the extent to which the Air Force met the statutory requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.303 and/ or FAR 16.505, as applicable. The review should also detail remedial steps to be taken when the requirements of FAR 6.303 and/or FAR 16.505 have not been met, as applicable. Implementation of Requirement for Designation of a Lead Inspector General for Certain Contingency Operations The committee applauds the work done by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Both have done much to provide independent and objective oversight of reconstruction projects and activities through the conduct of audits and investigations. The committee believes they have promoted efficiency and effectiveness in reconstruction programs and have detected and prevented waste, fraud, and abuse. They have also provided valuable recommendations to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness during contingency operations and have aided the development of policies to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse during those operations. However, the committee notes that SIGIR was not established by law until October 2004 and SIGAR was not established by law until January 2008, years and months after the United States began contingency operations and reconstruction activities in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee recognizes that future contingency operations will likely be heavily reliant on contractors, including contracts for the procurement of locally available goods and services, to support and assist the U.S. mission in such operations, and therefore certain contingency operations could benefit from the designation of a lead Inspector General (IG) early in the operation. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) included a provision, section 848, which requires the designation of a lead IG for overseas contingency operations not later than 30 days after the commencement of certain military operations. The committee is aware that the offices of the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have initiated preliminary interagency discussions on the implementation of section 848. The committee applauds this effort and recognizes that development of a framework for section 848 implementation is a complex and challenging endeavor. Such challenges include establishing a process for requesting funding to support the activities of the lead IG once a contingency operation is declared; resourcing and manpower considerations, including the ability to surge when needed; maintaining a workforce that is skilled and trained to conduct IG responsibilities in a wide variety of potential contingency operations; and keeping open lines of communication so as to foster relationships between the three agencies' Inspectors General during peacetime. Therefore, the committee encourages the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID to establish a memorandum of agreement that would serve as a framework for implementation of section 848 and execution of the responsibilities described therein. The committee requests to be kept informed of progress and notified of obstacles related to the implementation of section 848. Furthermore, the committee specifically requests to be notified of the need for any changes to law or regulation in order to better enhance oversight of future contingency operations. Online Reverse Auctions The committee is aware that the military services have been increasingly utilizing online reverse auctions for the procurement of certain commodities and simple services. This procurement strategy, when used effectively and appropriately, can result in savings to the Federal Government versus estimated prices. According to Federal Times, Naval Supply Systems Command recently piloted a reverse auction program, saving approximately $2.0 million in the first year of the program. In view of the serious fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense, acquisitions strategies which provide the same level of goods and service to the warfighter at reduced costs to the taxpayer are commendable. The committee would encourage the services to consider increasing their use of reverse auctions for certain types of acquisitions that lend themselves to this model and meet this standard, but to also review their own studies, including that of the Corps of Engineers, that may provide additional guidance regarding the best utilization of this procurement methodology. Report on Operational Contract Support in Afghanistan The Department of Defense has begun its drawdown of troops and equipment from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. For the past 11 years, the Department of Defense has spent billions of dollars on operational contract support in Afghanistan and continues to employ over 100,000 U.S. personnel, third country nationals, and Afghans as contractor employees in Afghanistan. Additionally, there is potentially a large amount of contractor-managed Government-owned equipment in Afghanistan, which must also be disposed. The Comptroller General of the United States' previous work on the drawdown of U.S. troops in the Republic of Iraq highlighted the difficulties the Department of Defense had in planning and executing the drawdown of contractors from Iraq. The drawdown of contractors in Afghanistan is likely to be more complex than that which the Department of Defense faced in Iraq due to continuing combat operations and the need to plan operational contract support for the post-2014 advise and assist mission. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by January 10, 2014, that reviews the processes and procedures that the Department of Defense is using to plan and execute the drawdown of contractors and their equipment in Afghanistan. The committee is particularly concerned with how the Department of Defense is ensuring that its contractor drawdown is done in the most cost-effective manner. The report should include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) How the Department is applying operational contract support lessons learned as it begins its drawdown of contractors and their equipment in Afghanistan; (2) How the Department and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan have established processes and procedures to draw down its contractor workforce and associated equipment and the extent to which these processes are synchronized with established milestones and other guidance; (3) How the Department is using cost and other information to help ensure it is making cost-effective operational contract support drawdown decisions, including decisions on the disposition of contractor- managed, Government-owned equipment; (4) How the Department has taken actions to ensure that there are sufficient personnel in place to oversee contractors as it reduces the number of military forces in Afghanistan; and (5) How the Department and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan have planned for the use of contractors after December 31, 2014, and the extent to which the Department has considered post-2014 contractor requirements and costs in such planning. Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Source Selection Processes The committee applauds recent efforts by the Department of Defense to cut costs and save taxpayer dollars. These efforts, such as ``Better Buying Power'' initiatives, seek to achieve greater efficiencies through affordability, cost control and the elimination of unproductive processes or bureaucracy. Such efforts also seek to promote competition. However, the committee is concerned that this well-intentioned effort by the Department to lower costs frequently results in the inappropriate awarding of contracts based on a lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) standard instead of a best-value tradeoff approach. According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the goal of the acquisition system is to ``deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public's trust and fulfilling public policy objectives.'' In certain circumstances, pursuing the lowest cost in the short term can result in significant operational and financial costs in the long term. In October 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the Department's use of best value processes. In that report (GAO- 11-8), GAO found that the Department used a best-value tradeoff approach for about 70 percent of its new, competitively awarded contracts in fiscal year 2009. An LPTA approach was used for about 25 percent of these contracts. The committee believes that awarding contracts based on an LPTA basis should not become the default position of the Department. Instead, careful consideration must be given to each contract to ensure that there is an appropriate weighing of cost versus other considerations. When a requirement is well defined and the risk of poor contract performance is minimal, it may be appropriate to use price as the primary basis for awarding a contract. However, when the requirement is complex, performance risk is high, or failure to perform has significant consequences (such as in the case of intelligence or private security services, or development and procurement of personal protective equipment and critical safety items, or development of emerging or critical technology), then a best-value tradeoff approach may be more appropriate. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the Department's recent use of source selection processes, including LPTA. Such a review should, at a minimum, examine the following: (1) Guidance and directives, including those of the military services, related to the use of appropriate source selection approaches, including LPTA; (2) Sufficiency of training of the acquisition workforce (to include training offered at the Defense Acquisition University) on the appropriate use of source selection approaches; (3) Implementation of recent efficiency initiatives, to include ``Better Buying Power'' initiatives to influence the use of LPTA source selection procedures; (4) Risks associated with implementing the reverse auction method as part of any LPTA approach for the procurement of critical safety items, personal protective equipment and other complex technologies; and (5) Waiver guidance and frequency of use on contracts awarded using LPTA procedures. In conducting the review, the committee encourages the Comptroller General to obtain the views of defense contractors to gain insight into how the use of LPTA source selection procedures affects business decisions and to identify the unintended consequences, if any, resulting from the use of this approach. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide the findings of the review, along with recommendations to improve the Department's contracting practices, to the congressional defense committees by June 30, 2014. Utilization of Standardized Services Contract Approval Form The committee recognizes that the Department of the Army has promoted compliance with important sourcing and management laws through the establishment of a Request for Services Contract Approval Form, which is, essentially, a checklist which conveniently and concisely integrates those laws in one form. Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination and consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to issue policies for implementing a standard checklist to be completed prior to the issuance of solicitation for any new service contract or exercising of any existing contract option for services, including services provided under a goods contract. In implementing a standard checklist, the committee directs the Department to model, to the maximum extent practicable, its policies and checklist on those already used by the Department of the Army. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management Section 801--Modification of Reporting Requirement for Department of Defense Business System Acquisition Programs when Initial Operating Capability is not Achieved within Five-Years of Milestone A Approval This section would amend the reporting requirement imposed on defense business systems (DBS) acquisition programs by section 811 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) by clarifying the separate treatment of Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) DBS and non-MAIS DBS. Specifically, this section would clarify that section 811 is inapplicable to MAIS DBS acquisition programs because such programs are independently subject to critical change reporting under section 2445c of title 10, United States Code. This section would also modify the requirement for non-MAIS DBS reporting a failure to achieve initial operational capacity (IOC) within 5-years of milestone A approval from a critical change report to a report to the Department of Defense pre-certification authority explaining the causes and circumstances surrounding the failure to achieve IOC within the required time. Section 802--Enhanced Transfer of Technology Developed at Department of Defense Laboratories This section would establish a 5-year pilot program to allow Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories to license DOD- owned intellectual property that may or may not be patented, and to retain associated royalties consistent with existing statutes on patent licensing, section 209 of title 35, United States Code, and royalties, section 3710c of title 15, United States Code. Section 803--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount Available for Contract Services This section would extend limitations on contract services under section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 111-84), through 2015. Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations Section 811--Additional Contractor Responsibilities in Regulations Relating to Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts This section would amend section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81) to provide that the costs associated with the use of counterfeit electronic parts, and the subsequent cost of rework or corrective action that may be required to remedy the use or inclusion of such parts, are allowable costs under Department of Defense contracts if the counterfeit electronic parts were procured from an original manufacturer or its authorized dealer, or from a trusted supplier. Section 812--Amendments Relating to Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts This section would amend section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81) to expand the conditions under which covered contractors can qualify for exemption from strict liability associated with rework and corrective action related to counterfeits of obsolete electronic parts. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a section that would further amend section 818 Public Law 112-81. Section 813--Government-wide Limitations on Allowable Costs for Contractor Compensation This section would amend section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10, United States Code, and section 4304(a) of title 41, United States Code, to replace the current statutory benchmark compensation formula used to determine the amount of contractor compensation that is considered an allowable cost for a federal contract, with the current compensation benchmark amount for fiscal year 2013 of $763,209. This section would limit additional changes to the current compensation baseline to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index (ECI). This section would also make unallowable the entire cost of compensation for the five most-highly compensated employees of a contractor that was awarded more than $500.0 million in federal contracts in the previous fiscal year. The committee believes the application of the current formula by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy is flawed, as it has resulted in an escalation of $422,559, or nearly 225 percent, in the 15 years since the compensation cap was established in law. The committee does not believe this escalation reflects the actual adjustments in compensation for defense contractors over this same period due to inflation and other market factors. The committee notes that section 1127 of title 41, United States Code, directs the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to ``review commercially available surveys of executive compensation and, on the basis of the results of the review, determine a benchmark compensation amount to apply for each fiscal year.'' The Administrator is also directed to consult with the Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency and other officials from executive agencies in making the determination. However, rather than using all available data and input from appropriate officials to inform decision-making, it appears that the Administrator has interpreted the requirements of section 1127 to require that the benchmark compensation amount be established at an amount equal to the median amount of the total compensation (total amount of wages, salary, bonuses and deferred compensation) accrued over a 12-month period for the top five highest paid employees in management positions at each home office and each segment of publicly traded U.S. companies with annual sales over $50.0 million. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if the current approach remains in place the compensation cap could be raised to as high as $1.6 million by fiscal year 2020. Section 814--Inclusion of Additional Cost Estimate Information in Certain Reports This section would amend section 2432 of title 10, United States Code, to require that the program's baseline cost estimate, along with the associated risk curve and sensitivity of that estimate be provided in the quarterly selected acquisition reports. In addition, this section would require that the reports include the current point estimate bounded by the the low-end and high-end estimates and the associated sensitivity of those estimates, and identification of the primary risk parameters associated with that point estimate. Furthermore, this section would require reporting of estimated termination liability remaining on the contract. Finally, this section would amend section 2334(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to review the information required by this section and to include trend information, a summary of findings and recommendations to improve the cost estimates of the Department of Defense in the annual report to Congress on cost assessment activities. Section 815--Amendment Relating to Compelling Reasons for Waiving Suspension or Debarment This section would amend section 2393(b) of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to make available on a publicly accessible website any determination that there is a compelling reason to solicit an offer from, award a contract to, extend a contract with, or approve a subcontract with an offeror or contractor that has been debarred or suspended by a Federal agency. Section 816--Requirement that Cost or Price to the Federal Government be Given at Least Equal Importance as Technical or Other Criteria in Evaluating Competitive Proposals for Defense Contracts This section would amend section 2305(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to require that the head of an agency of the Department of Defense, in prescribing the evaluation factors to be included in each solicitation for competitive proposals, assign importance to cost or price at least equal to all evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined. This section would allow the head of an agency to waive the requirement, and it would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress, not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year, a report containing a list of each waiver issued during the preceding fiscal year. Section 817--Requirement to Buy American Flags from Domestic Sources This section would amend section 2533a(b) of title 10, United States Code, to include ``a flag of the United States of America'' to the list of items that the Department of Defense may not procure unless the item is grown, processed, reused, or produced in the United States. Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan Section 821--Amendments Relating to Prohibition on Contracting with the Enemy This section would amend section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81), regarding the authority of the Secretary of Defense to void a contract upon a determination that a foreign entity performing on the contract is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, to: (1) Lower the threshold for covered contracts from $0.1 million to $0.05 million; (2) Provide the authority to certain other geographic combatant commands during a contingency operation as defined by section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code; and (3) Make the authority permanent. Section 822--Collection of Data Relating to Contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan This section would amend section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110- 181), as amended, to allow for imposition of a penalty on any contractor that does not comply with the policies, guidance or regulations issued pursuant to that section. This section would also amend section 863 of Public Law 110-181 to require that the Annual Joint Report on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan include information on any penalties imposed on contractors for failing to comply with requirements under section 861(e) of Public Law 110-181. Subtitle D--Other Matters Section 831--Extension of Pilot Program on Acquisition of Military Purpose Non-Developmental Items This section would amend section 866 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) by extending the program authority to December 31, 2019. In February 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics reported to the congressional defense committees that the pilot program for acquisition of military purpose non-developmental items (MPNDI) had not been used even though the Secretary of Defense implemented it through the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement in June 2011. The committee is aware that there may be confusion about the requirement in section 866 of Public Law 111-383 for a contract under the MPNDI pilot program to be awarded using competitive procedures in accordance with chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that section 866 of Public Law 111-383 is clear that any exception to competition requirements provided in the Competition in Contracting Act (10 U.S.C. 2304) applies to MPNDI acquisitions because section 2304(c) is part of chapter 137. However, the committee is concerned that the program has been implemented in a manner that either discourages use of the MPNDI authority, or infers that section 2304(c) of title 10, United States Code, does not apply. The committee encourages the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review the MPNDI implementation guidance and to clarify that the standard exceptions to competition may be used as appropriate. The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense has not yet utilized the authorities provided by section 866 of Public Law 111-383, and it continues to believe that, if implemented, the MPNDI program could improve rapid acquisitions of privately-developed, militarily-useful items. This potential for improvement includes prospects for reducing costs, eliminating developmental periods, and expanding the industrial base by including non-traditional contractors. Section 832--Extension of Authority to Acquire Products and Services Produced in Countries Along a Major Route of Supply to Afghanistan This section would amend section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111- 84), as amended by section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), by extending the authority to acquire products and services produced in countries along a major route of supply in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan through December 31, 2015. TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Air Force Force Structure The committee recognizes the challenges the U.S. Air Force confronts as a result of sequestration, a restricted budget with limited resources to modernize, and an aging aircraft fleet. The committee believes that the Air Force must remain a premier fighting force. To this end, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) created the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force following extensive debate during the last budget cycle regarding the Air Force's Total Force Plan submitted with the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request and as revised in November 2012. The commission is undertaking a comprehensive study of the structure of the Air Force to determine whether, and how, the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements in a manner consistent with strategy and available resources. The considerations of the commission, outlined in section 363(a)(2) of Public Law 112- 239, state that the commission shall give particular consideration to evaluating a structure that: (1) Meets current and anticipated requirements of the combatant commands; (2) Achieves an appropriate balance between the regular and Reserve Components, taking advantage of the unique strengths and capabilities of each; (3) Ensures that the regular and Reserve Components 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 Active Duty 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 support operational tempo goals of 1:2 for active-duty members of the Air Force and 1:5 for members of the Reserve Components; and (6) Maximizes and appropriately balances affordability, efficiency, effectiveness, capability, and readiness. As the committee awaits the report by the commission due by February 1, 2014, the committee seeks to understand the measures the Air Force is taking to retrain airmen affected by the elimination of weapons systems and equipment under the November 2012 Total Force Plan to ensure mission readiness. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, by October 1, 2013, the plan to transition qualified airmen, whose weapons systems or positions are being terminated, to new skills and weapons systems. Air Force Materiel Command Metrics The committee notes that the Air Force is undertaking a significant reorganization of Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) that the Secretary of the Air Force indicates will improve warfighter support, drive standard processes, improve life- cycle acquisition management, and reduce overhead. Specifically, the Air Force is reducing more than 1,000 positions across the command at an estimated annual savings of more than $100.0 million. As the Air Force implements this reorganization, the committee expects the Secretary to adhere to the reporting requirements in section 2687 of title 10, United States Code, and the reporting requirement in section 2814 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239). While the committee agrees it is imperative to generate efficiencies across the Air Force enterprise, the committee also believes it is essential to preserve critical functions and capabilities at AFMC installations. The committee notes that RAND Project Air Force, in its 2012 report ``Air Force Materiel Command Reorganization Analysis,'' recommended AFMC develop and use a suite of metrics to track mission performance against goals. These metrics would facilitate root-cause analysis of any inefficiencies resulting from the reorganization. The committee is pleased that AFMC, through the AFMC corporate governance structure outlined in the 2013 AFMC strategic plan, currently uses these metrics to monitor progress towards meeting AFMC's enduring priorities. The committee seeks to better understand how AFMC is measuring organizational successes and identifying challenges arising from the new 5-Center construct. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to adopt an additional metric which measures progress on AFMC objectives against a designated pre-reorganization baseline. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by January 1, 2014, on AFMC's internal metrics. The report should include, but not be limited to, command metrics, tracking, and data collected as of the report due date. The report should be submitted quarterly and in an unclassified form, with a classified annex if necessary. Updated reports should be submitted to the aforementioned committees on a quarterly basis through January 1, 2015. Air Sea Battle Office The committee is aware that the military services established the Air Sea Battle (ASB) office in 2012 as a result of the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) disestablishment. USJFCOM had an office focused on the Air Sea Battle concept integration, specifically as it related to requirements, capability gaps and shortfalls, projects and programs directly related to effectively employing in an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) contingency operation. The committee is concerned whether the placement of the current ASB office outside of the Joint Staff is the most logical and effective location for integrating ASB concepts across the services. The committee believes the Secretary of Defense should evaluate the ASB office to see if it is accomplishing its goals to enable and prepare the U.S. military to effectively operate in an A2/AD environment, and whether the office provides a unique function and perspective or it duplicates other efforts carried out elsewhere in the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to determine the effectiveness of the ASB office and whether the office is carrying out a unique function or duplicates other efforts. Should the Secretary conclude that the ASB office is effective and non-duplicative of other efforts, the Secretary should determine whether the ASB office should continue as is, be modified, or placed within the Joint Staff. The committee directs the Secretary to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2014, on the results of the analysis and the future of the ASB office. Air Force High Consequence Information Technology Services The committee is aware that while currently Air Force Space Command can rapidly contract for mission critical high consequence information technology needs, new contracting mechanisms may negatively impact that current capability. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by October 1, 2013 on its plan to preserve and sustain the high consequence, mission critical information technology services procurement for fiscal year 2014 and beyond. This plan should address how the Air Force, including Air Force Space Command, will provision for rapidly contracting for mission critical, high consequence, network command and control (C2), cyber, nuclear-related, and combatant commander mission support responsibilities. Assessment of Cyber Centers of Academic Excellence The committee is aware that the cyber security and information assurance manpower needs are growing increasingly in both total numbers as well as in disciplines where new skills are needed. In order to develop an adequate pool of appropriately skilled individuals, the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security have jointly established a program to certify institutions of higher learning that provides curricula for information assurance education. The certification program for Centers of Academic Excellence (CAE) includes a rigorous application and screening process, which focuses on identifying schools offering a highly technical and interdisciplinary curriculum. The committee believes that leveraging CAEs may help the Department of Defense achieve its near-term goals of increasing the number of qualified cyber personnel. However, the committee believes that the current certification program should be assessed to determine its strengths as well as areas where improvement is needed. Therefore, the committee directs that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/ Chief Information Officer, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military services and the Director, National Security Agency, to provide an assessment to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the National Security Agency/Department of Homeland Security Centers of Academic Excellence program. The report should include an assessment of criteria for certification of institutions, mechanisms for increasing collaboration between Department of Defense and certified institutions, and mechanisms for increasing the number of graduates from CAE-certified institutions into the Department of Defense's cyber workforce. Briefing to Congress on ICBM motor stockpile The committee understands the need for cost savings, but is concerned about the impact that budget cuts, industry consolidation, and lack of sufficient and stable demand have had on the industrial base for strategic solid rocket motors. The committee believes that a healthy solid rocket motor industrial base is critical. However, the committee is also aware of commercial launch systems that use surplus solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) motors, in accordance with existing laws and restrictions. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the status of the surplus ICBM motor stockpile. The briefing should include, at a minimum, the current inventory of surplus ICBM motors; a cost-benefit analysis of using surplus ICBM motors for space launch versus acquisition of new motors, including potential taxpayer savings and the associated costs such as surplus motor maintenance, modification for space launch, and possible destruction; and the potential effects on the solid rocket motor industrial base as well as on civil, government, and military launch vehicle markets of adjustments to the existing laws and restrictions. Cadastral Geographic Information Systems Inventory The committee recognizes and supports the efforts of the Installations and Environment Business Enterprise Integration (I&E BEI) to modernize the parcel and land inventory or ``cadastral'' records to meet the challenges of the future. The work accomplished thus far to develop, modernize, and consolidate the Department of Defense's real property asset inventory should continue to be a high priority, particularly given that real property asset management continues to be a GAO High Risk activity (GAO-13-359T) and the Department of Defense still cannot accurately account for its real property assets or the environmental liabilities thereon (GAO-13-271R). The committee recommends that the Department of Defense I&E BEI work with other agencies within the Federal Government to develop a current, accurate, interoperable cadastral geographic information systems based inventory that eliminates duplicate and obsolete activities. Comptroller General Review of the Department of Defense's Implementation of Civilian Personnel Furloughs The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense waited so late in the fiscal year to explore options and the potential impact resulting from the required reductions in spending in accordance with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). The Department's civilian workforce is key to carrying out its roles and responsibilities. The Department has announced that it will implement furloughs of the civilian workforce in order to meet its required reductions. According to the Secretary of Defense's May 14, 2013, memorandum, certain civilian employees will be excepted from furloughs. In light of this, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess what criteria were used in the determination of which civilian employees to except from furloughs and how the Department planned for, implemented, and is monitoring furloughs of the civilian workforce to include what challenges the Department has faced in its implementation and cost savings realized. The Comptroller General should submit the results of the review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 10, 2014. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2013, on the steps that the Department is taking to minimize any negative impact on the morale of the civilian workforce and long-term consequences on recruiting and retention of the civilian workforce. Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Cyber Resiliency The committee notes that the national and economic security of the United States depends on the ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct its mission-essential functions across a wide range of potential emergencies, including localized natural disasters and accidents, as well as technological and/or attack-related emergencies. Historically, nuclear threats to DOD locations led to the development of leadership succession plans and identifying alternate work facilities. However, events such as Hurricane Katrina, have demonstrated that the need for effective continuity of operations planning on a broader scope is necessary. Further, the committee is concerned that as the cyber threat continues to evolve and escalate, the information systems and networks upon which the Department's operations and continuity plans are dependent may become unavailable, infiltrated, and/or destroyed. The committee is aware that the Department's Continuity Program requires the Department to develop continuity of operations plans that would allow it to conduct its mission- essential functions under any circumstances across the spectrum of threats on the assumption that no warning of attack or event will be received. Such plans should identify, among other things, information systems and networks that are needed to execute their plans, and those information systems should have contingency plans that recognize their support to the ability to maintain continuity of operations. The Department's Continuity Program also requires the Department to exercise its plans to validate planning assumptions and to take action to address deficiencies that are identified. Given the number of cyber incidents occurring within the Department and the sophisticated nature of the threats, the committee is concerned about the extent to which the Department of Defense has developed and exercised its continuity of operations plans for a degraded cyber environment. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the Department of Defense continuity of operations planning for a degraded cyber environment, and to submit a report on the findings to the review to the congressional defense committees by January 7, 2014. The review should include the following: (1) The extent to which the Department has oversight of DOD component efforts to plan for and conduct continuity of operations in a degraded cyber environment; (2) The extent to which the Department has identified information systems and networks that are necessary to support DOD's continuity of operations; (3) The extent to which the Department has coordinated its continuity of operations planning efforts with the Department's information system and network contingency planning efforts; (4) The extent to which the Department has exercised its continuity of operations plans in a cyber degraded environment through identification and action to address any deficiencies; and (5) Any additional matters that the Comptroller General determines to be relevant. Comptroller General Review of Conduct of Roles and Missions Analysis Section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) created section 118b of title 10, United States Code, which requires a comprehensive assessment of the roles and missions of the Armed Forces and the core competencies and capabilities of the Department of Defense to perform and support such roles and missions. The committee notes this section contains specific requirements for the conduct of the Quadrennial Roles and Mission Review (QRMR) and is disappointed that the Department has failed to fully comply with the law. By statute, the Secretary of Defense, after giving appropriate consideration to recommendations of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, is to identify: (1) The core mission areas of the Armed Forces; (2) The core competencies and capabilities that are associated with the performance or support of such core mission areas; (3) The elements of the Department that are responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities; (4) Any gaps in the ability of the elements of the Department to provide for core competencies and capabilities; (5) Any unnecessary duplication of effort; and (6) A plan to address identified gaps and reduce unnecessary duplication of effort. Rather than conduct the QRMR in 2011, as mandated, the Secretary provided the committee with a summary of the results of a presidentially-directed strategic review over 5 months after the deadline for the 2012 QRMR report to Congress. While the committee is pleased that the Department took steps to identify strategic interests in an attempt to guide defense priorities and spending for the coming decade, the strategic guidance is not a substitute for the QRMR. Furthermore, while the strategic guidance does broadly identify primary missions of the U.S. Armed Forces, such as counterterrorism, deterring and defeating aggression, and projecting power despite anti- access/area denial challenges, it does not address items (2) through (6), as noted above and required by section 118b of title 10, United States Code. Moreover, section 222 of title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a future years mission budget at the same time as, and in addition to, the submission of the budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31 for any fiscal year. The future years mission budget is required to organize the military programs of the Department of Defense on the basis of both major force programs and the core mission areas identified under the most recent QRMR. The committee notes that the Department has also failed to consistently meet this requirement. In a partial attempt to comply with it, the Department provided the committee with a document this year which merely highlighted certain areas of the budget request for fiscal year 2013 which could be connected to the primary missions identified in the strategic guidance. The committee believes the failure to identify core mission areas, core competencies, capability gaps, unnecessary duplications, and plans for addressing any such gaps or duplications, undermines national security and wastes valuable defense funds in a time of constrained budgets. The committee is disappointed that the Department did not leverage the requirement for the 2012 QRMR as a tool for reducing waste, while also improving its joint warfighting capability. The committee is also aware that in March 2013, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Department would undertake a ``Strategic Choices and Management Review''. While the committee applauds active leadership on these matters, the committee notes that title 10 of United States Code, provides for a detailed and continuous framework for such reviews. The committee is concerned that although section 118b of title 10, United States Code, was enacted in January 2008, it appears that little has been done to improve QRMR processes to enhance subsequent reviews or to inform the Quadrennial Defense Review, resulting in the self-initiation of several other duplicative, short-term reviews by the Department. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the processes used by Secretary of Defense in the conduct of the 2012 QRMR and the preparation of the fiscal year 2013 future years mission budget. The Comptroller should provide a report to the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2014, on the findings of the review, along with recommendations for improving the Department's conduct of future QRMRs and preparation of the future years mission budget. Coordination of Cyber and Electronic Warfare Capabilities The committee notes that significant advances have been made in both the cyber and electronic warfare (EW) domains. The committee is aware that there is increasing overlap between these domains, particularly with the advanced capabilities of next-generation EW platforms. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the status and level of coordination of research, development, test and evaluation efforts within the EW and cyber disciplines that bridge, or have corresponding dependencies, across these fields. Cost Drivers in the Department of Defense The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense is not like a commercial entity, though in many ways it can benefit from analysis and best practices also present in the commercial sector. In a time of fiscal austerity, the committee believes that the Department should do more to understand the major cost drivers within its business practices in an effort to contain costs and ensure efficiency. The committee also recognizes that there will be instances where effectiveness will be more important than efficiency, and will rightly accept increased costs for things that it needs, particularly when they pertain to the security of the Nation or protecting the life and limb of our service members. The committee believes, however, that such decisions should be made consciously and with full understanding of the risks, rewards, and subsequent costs. The committee encourages the Department to utilize tools such as the Strategic Management Plan to increase attention and collection of data on the cost drivers within the business processes of the Department. Critical Program Information The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has issued guidance related to the protection of critical program information, including requirements for the development and implementation of program protection plans for significant developmental activities where the risk of compromise of that information would allow an adversary to clone, counter, or defeat crucial capabilities. However, the committee is concerned about reports indicating that many recent designs of weapon systems have been compromised by foreign nation-state adversaries. For example, as noted elsewhere in this report, the 2012 Defense Security Service report, ``Targeting Technology: A Trend Analysis of Reporting from Defense Industry'', indicated that there are increases in aggressive cyber collection activities which target cleared contractor networks in attempts to obtain sensitive U.S. information and technologies. The committee is also aware that in a January 2013 report, ``Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat,'' the Defense Science Board (DSB) observed that the Department's poor cyber hygiene and lack of personal and command accountability for cyber actions pose serious threats to the secure use of defense networks and systems. Furthermore, the DSB called for development of more effective policies, operational rules and consequences for breeches of policy, including the development and tracking of performance measures, such as tracking of computer security violations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by August 1, 2013, that details the known network cyber intrusions resulting in compromise of critical program information related to Department of Defense weapon systems, information systems development, or other research and development initiatives from January 1, 2000, until August 1, 2013. The briefing should include: (1) Information on the critical program information that was compromised; (2) The source of the network that was compromised; (3) What systems or developmental activities were compromised; and (4) The suspected origin of the cyber intrusion. Cyber Standards Framework The committee is aware of the recent Executive Order ``Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,'' included language that directs the development of a framework for reducing cyber risks to critical infrastructure within the next year. The committee expects that the Cybersecurity Framework, developed under the leadership of the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, will incorporate a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks, including, where possible, voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to explore ways in which to incentivize, wherever possible, the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework, such as through contracts and other agreements with relevant outside vendors and utilities. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on actions being considered to encourage adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework. Data Management and Protection The committee is aware that the military departments have significant requirements for data usage, as well as data and information protection, for the development, acquisition, sustainment, maintenance, sale, and final disposition of nearly all military equipment and services. The committee is concerned that the combatant commands and the services generally do not view data management as a military critical function necessary for the efficient and effective operation of the services, and thus do not place a high enough priority on the investment of people or resources to carry out those tasks. The services spend a significant amount of time and resources on data collection, cleansing, and organization for individual acquisition and sustainment programs, but little time is spent looking at data management at an enterprise level to manage data standardization and interoperability across networks, platforms, or domains to ensure entrance of appropriate and accurate data into support enterprise activities and individual programs. With the emergence of the Joint Information Environment (JIE), the committee sees an opportunity for the Department of Defense to implement a comprehensive, enterprise- wide capability that will provide for data collection, management, and protection that can be utilized across the Department's functional communities for human resources, finance, logistics, intelligence, and materiel development. The committee believes such a data management and protection strategy should be a core tenet in the development and implementation of the JIE. Furthermore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to work with the affected functional communities to ensure that the JIE provides the data interoperability, enterprise management, and life cycle sustainment to maintain the support community, requirements generators, training forces, warfighters, and materiel developers throughout the military. Defense Intelligence Collection Management The committee recognizes the importance of effective collection management in the Department of Defense to enable optimal collection against intelligence targets that are a priority of the military services and combatant commands. The committee is aware that the Department identifies a collection management strategy as the method used by a collection manager to establish, prioritize, and submit collection requirements in a deliberate, focused, integrated, and synchronized manner across multiple intelligence disciplines. The goals of this strategy are: (1) to identify, allocate, and apply national, theater and tactical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance resources and capabilities; (2) to task these resources, submit requirements, and collect in a way that effectively and efficiently answers the priority intelligence requirements; (3) to support analytic intelligence information shortfalls and gaps; and (4) to support the development of effective and responsive collection plans to ground the adaptive planning process. Based on feedback from the combatant commands, the committee is concerned that the Department has not established the proper tools and training to fully enable the most effective collection and mission management. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide a briefing to the congressional defense and the congressional intelligence committees by February 1, 2014, on the Department's activities to support effective intelligence collection management and mission management. Enterprise Query and Correlation Pilot The committee applauds the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for implementing the Enterprise Query and Correlation Pilot required by section 925 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81). The committee supports the goals of this pilot to demonstrate cross-agency, large scale, distributed information query and correlation. The committee anticipates that the end result of this pilot will deliver reusable services with validated mission utility through the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue providing adequate resources for this effort in order to ensure timely completion and, as applicable, to incorporate the results into current intelligence systems. Exploitation of Foreign Commercial Cellular Networks The committee recognizes that foreign commercial cellular networks have posed a significant challenge as a source of command and control for insurgent forces in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as well as providing critical initiation techniques for improvised explosive devices. The committee understands that U.S. forces will continue to face similar threats in other parts of the world and must be positioned with the necessary technologies to combat these different threat environments. The committee believes that future force protection will require the ability to both exploit and defend against modern commercial cellular networks. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to examine the various regions within the different geographic combatant commands to understand the possible threats from the commercial cellular environment, and to ensure that the Department has the capabilities to exploit and defend against any vulnerabilities. Global Response Force The committee considers it a national priority to maintain the capability to rapidly project military power in support of our national interests. To that end, the committee seeks to provide the support necessary to maintain a robust expeditionary capability. A global response force that is ready to deploy at any time, to any location, by forcible entry, if required, is a critical element necessary to fulfill the U.S. national security objectives. A fully capable global response force provides strategic depth in order to provide effective crisis response and serves as a creditable deterrent, supporting diplomatic initiatives and the application of national power. The committee urges the Department of Defense to prioritize the identification of the current operational requirements and capability gaps for an effective global response force and ensure that a fully developed joint operational concept is in place to support the national military strategy. Further, the committee encourages additional investment in joint training programs and joint exercises that are necessary to further develop an effective global response force capability in accordance with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Force 2020 construct. Guidance on the Use of Borrowed Military Manpower As the Department of Defense (DOD) makes reductions in its Total Force workforce composition, military, civilians, and contractors, the committee is increasingly concerned about the use of military manpower to perform functions previously performed by either civilians or contractors. While the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force have indicated they do not anticipate wholesale substitutions using military personnel, the Secretary of the Army, in testimony before the committee in April 2013, predicted that the Army could use as many as 8,000 uniformed personnel to fill positions during the current fiscal year because reduced funding for training has created time gaps in the duty day and freed up soldiers for other duties. The committee understands the need for temporary, limited local command use of military personnel performing civilian work to accomplish mission objectives, but the committee notes that use of military manpower outside the service member's military occupational specialty poses risks to readiness and training, and raises issues of unsustainable costs. Consistent with ``Guidance Related to the Utilization of Military Manpower to Perform Certain Functions,'' issued March 2, 2012, by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the committee expects the Department of Defense to calculate the cost of using military personnel in lieu of civilian personnel or service contractors to perform non- military tasks in accordance with Directive Type Memorandum (DTM)-09-007, ``Estimating and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower and Contract Support'' or any succeeding guidance. For the purposes of this direction, military tasks are as defined in DOD Directive 1100.4, DOD Instruction 1100.22, and any successor or amplifying guidance as issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the use of borrowed military manpower (BMM) and to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 30, 2014, regarding the impacts on military readiness and training in fiscal year 2013, including how the Department weighed operational risks and capabilities and readiness levels with BMM calculations and decisions. The Comptroller General also should examine the extent to which manpower costs were calculated using the DTM 09-00. The committee understands that the Government Accountability Office is undertaking an extensive body of work regarding the impacts of sequestration on the Department of Defense and further directs the Comptroller General to include the use of BMM as a part of this effort. Guidance Regarding the Conversion of Functions Performed by Non- appropriated Fund Employees In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-439) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Department of Defense to clarify that the December 2011 guidance entitled Prohibition on Converting Certain Functions to Contract Performance ``applies as well to functions performed by Non-Appropriated Fund employees, which is consistent with section 2461 of title 10, United States Code.'' Section 2461 ensures that work performed by Department of Defense civilian employees is not outsourced without first conducting a formal cost comparison process; the committee notes that the law includes no exceptions for Non-Appropriated Fund employees. However, the committee is aware that the Department has not clarified the guidance and directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to issue the clarification guidance by July 8, 2013. Input into National Intelligence Priorities Framework The committee continues to support and commend efforts of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to further integrate and coordinate intelligence activities. The committee believes that as integration continues, it is essential to periodically assess and ensure that the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are meeting the intelligence needs of the warfighter. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman, Joints Chiefs of Staff to submit an assessment to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees by October 1, 2013, evaluating the extent to which the coordination process for the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF) incorporates the intelligence priorities of the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the military departments. Such assessment should include a description of the input from the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the military departments regarding significant intelligence priorities; the process used to communicate such input; and the results of such input. The assessment should also include specific feedback from each of the combatant commands and military departments regarding the NIPF coordination process and any recommendations for improving the input of the Joint Staff, combatant commands, and military departments to that process. Integrated Science and Technology Campus for the Defense Intelligence Agency The committee recognizes the important role that science and technology research play in advancing the mission of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). As threats become increasingly more complex and sophisticated, DIA science and technology programs will need to work in synergy and leverage assets available in the interagency, academic, and industrial research community to address new interdisciplinary challenges. The committee believes that the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 2005 vision of an integrated science and technology campus for DIA is critical component of its ability to provide indications and warning of future technology threats, as well as in-depth analyses that could monitor and develop countermeasures or mitigation measures for those threat technologies, as necessary. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the progress of the BRAC 2005 vision. The briefing should address the following: (1) How DIA is leveraging other Government agency expertise to fulfill its mission; (2) How DIA is utilizing or plans to utilize, academic, industry, and non-profit research organization capabilities to enhance its science and technology focus; (3) To what extent DIA is at space capacity at its current facilities; (4) What facilities have been considered, designed, or constructed to realize the integrated campus; and (5) What resources are required to achieve the BRAC 2005 vision. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Aircraft Utilization The committee is concerned that there is a growing divide between combatant commanders' day-to-day utilization of airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft and the Department of Defense's current formal requirements generation process that focuses on meeting specific contingency plan-related metrics. The committee believes that non-combat, ``peacetime'' ISR demand is at least as important, if not more important, than highly speculative predictions regarding ISR demand during combat operations. For example, the committee notes that the Air Force's fiscal year 2013 proposal to retire RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk aircraft was based on changes to contingency plan requirements rather than on daily, ongoing ISR missions and unfulfilled combatant command ISR needs. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a classified briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by November 1, 2013, that includes a detailed layout of ISR aircraft utilization in fiscal year 2013. The briefing should address all manned ISR aircraft, and all unmanned ISR aircraft in the MQ-1/9 and larger class of UAS. The briefing should specify the number of systems, types of missions, flight hours, and other operational data. Non-Perimeter Cyber Defenses The committee notes that the Department of Defense continues to make progress in securing its networks from cyber threats. In order to combat new and evolving threats, the committee believes that new tactics, techniques, and technologies will be needed to increase the cyber security of defense information systems. Recent reports from commercial computer security firms indicate that U.S. adversaries increasingly are using techniques that can compromise ``perimeter defenses.'' The committee is concerned that the Department's cyber security posture will continue to be weakened without the investigation and implementation of new, emerging protection technologies. The committee encourages the Department to look at new cyber security approaches, such as ``dynamic maneuvering'' or ``moving target'' technologies that can help to proactively reduce the attack surfaces of the Department and increase mission resiliency and survivability. The committee is particularly interested in how these technologies might be incorporated into existing networks, as well as the future Joint Information Enterprise. The committee encourages the Department to examine these technologies and include their findings in future quarterly cyber operations briefings. Open-Source Intelligence Utilization The committee notes that open-source intelligence (OSINT) is intelligence that is produced from publicly available information collected, exploited, and disseminated to an appropriate audience for the purpose of addressing a specific intelligence requirement. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for OSINT to be incorporated into the larger military intelligence strategy. The committee recognizes that the accessibility of open-source information has increased significantly in recent years due to rapid growth of international internet use and consideration as a global commons. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide a briefing to the congressional defense and the congressional intelligence committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the current status of the OSINT strategy and operations within the Department of Defense. The briefing should include the following: (1) An overview of the current strategy for OSINT collection, to meet the intelligence priorities of the military services and combatant commands; (2) A description of all OSINT activities within the military services and combatant commands including the level of coordination and deconfliction between ongoing joint efforts; (3) A description of the current level of coordination with the Director of National Intelligence Open Source Center; (4) Gaps in OSINT capabilities within the Department; (5) Research, development, test and evaluation efforts in the Department related to collection, processing and sharing of open-source intelligence; and (6) Recommendations for future improvements in the Department's OSINT strategy and efforts. Pilot to Counter Brokers of Transnational Criminal Organizations The committee is aware that the complex pathways and instrumentalities of the global economic system provide both a source of revenue and backdrop in which to hide for a number of nation-state and non-state actors. In particular, Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) have increasingly been able to use the global economic environment to their advantage. TCOs have grown more complex over time, and so has our ability to defeat them, however, this complexity has challenged our ability to access and use collective information available. The committee believes that criminal cartel organizations are hosting themselves in U.S. cities and may be teaming with terrorists also embedded in the United States to fund terror networks overseas. These networks provide sustained and substantial funding to pay operatives, support families, purchase and traffic weapons, indoctrinate and recruit new members, train, travel, and bribe officials and also perpetrate billions of dollars worth of fraud against banks, businesses and Governments. The list of crimes that the new international criminal organizations are involved in includes the trafficking of narcotics, humans, weapons, illegally poached animal remains, and chemical, biological, and nuclear material. Disrupting the means and mechanisms through which these networks move money will significantly disrupt their operations, but remains the most challenging piece of the puzzle to unravel. The key to dissecting these financial networks is to identify the ``brokers;'' a category of individuals who facilitates financial activities. Brokers may be employees of a single TCO, such as a terrorist group or drug cartel, or they may be independent operators charging variable fees based on external factors such as interest rates, dollar amount, and denomination of currency. These individuals may work in banking, real estate, insurance, own small businesses, or simply have legitimate access to the financial system. The information needed to unravel these global networks is available through various technical, commercial, open source and Government-owned means, yet require experienced subject matter experts to ``connect the dots;'' an ability directly proportional to their access to information across the community of interest. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, to establish a pilot program to determine the information requirements for identifying and countering TCO brokers, and to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act on the results of the pilot program. Science and Technology Community Intelligence Needs Planning The committee applauds recent efforts by the Department of Defense science and technology (S&T) community to reinvigorate its relationship with the intelligence community. The committee is aware that in 2010, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering drafted an Intelligence Needs Plan in order to formally convey the S&T communities' intelligence requirements to the intelligence community. The committee believes that such efforts are important in order to position science and technology for the development of capabilities for new and emerging threat areas. The committee is concerned that the focus of intelligence activities for the past 10 years has been primarily focused on near-term, operationally-oriented support that consequently, the capabilities to do long-term, open-ended estimations have atrophied. Creating a demand signal for such analyses would both rebuild needed intelligence skills and support better S&T planning. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate by February 1, 2014, on the intelligence requirements of the science and technology community, as well as the process by which the intelligence community would satisfy those requirements. Software Assurance Policy The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is in the process of developing a baseline software assurance policy for the entire life cycle of covered systems in response to section 933 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee believes that any such guidance and direction for Department program managers should conform with internationally recognized, consensus-based security assurance standards, and should explore options for accepting both self-certification or third- party certification for compliance purposes. For example, the committee believes that this software assurance policy should be developed in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum for Chief Information Officers and Senior Procurement Executive's regarding Technology Neutrality dated January 7, 2011. The committee also believes that any future software assurance policy that include requirements concerning Federal participation in the development and use of voluntary consensus standards should be conducted in accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, section 272 of title 15, United States Code, and the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119. Space Training The committee notes that the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) commissioned a study on the Joint Space Individual Training and Education Needs Assessment (JSITENA). This study, which concluded in September 2012, defined and analyzed the joint space training and education environment and recommended solutions to existing gaps, shortfalls, and redundancies in preparation of officers and enlisted personnel to support joint space missions. The committee commends STRATCOM on the study and supports the recommendations identified in the JSITENA which improve integration, find efficiencies, and identify opportunities to better meet joint requirements across the services and combatant commands. Technical Defense Intelligence Training The committee supports training for the Defense intelligence workforce, particularly in the area of technical intelligence, as a critical investment in national security. The expansion of advanced sensors and platforms is increasing the volume of technical intelligence and the demand for intelligence exploitation. When necessary, based on Government capacity, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to consider appropriately cleared non-Government providers of specialized technical intelligence training if providers can meet Defense intelligence needs and reduce Government costs. Training Standards for Department of Defense Cyber Missions The committee notes that the Department of Defense is in the process of staffing a number of national cyber forces under U.S. Cyber Command, including national mission teams, combatant command mission teams, and cyber protection platoons. The committee is also aware that as part of this process, the Department is working to establish a joint standard to provide some level of standardization and compatibility among forces being supplied by the military services. The committee encourages the Department to continue developing these training standards for cyber forces, but believes that the Department should consider the scalability and sustainability of such training. The committee is aware that the Department already faces serious challenges in building and sustaining its cyber forces, and the increased demands from U.S. Cyber Command make that challenge even more acute. Furthermore, the committee recognizes that the military services already have training demands to meet their own statutory requirements to man, train and equip forces for their networks, and that those requirements must be taken into consideration as well. The committee is concerned that the process for determining a joint training standard may be settling on a proposed standard too quickly, without sufficient analysis to support the scalability demands on the services. In addition, the committee believes that such a standard should include an assessment of the current training and education capabilities inherent in the services to determine if the current infrastructure meets the personnel training pipeline, as well as if there are any gaps that will need to be resourced in the future. The committee also notes that any standard should include the means for leveraging commercial standards and certifications to reduce the burden on departmental infrastructure. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the cyber force training needs of the Department. The briefing should include the current and proposed training standard and the Department's process for expanding the training across the force. The committee also expects that future quarterly cyber operations briefings will include updates on the manning and training metrics for U.S. Cyber Command national mission teams. Vulnerability of Tactical Data Links in Denied Areas The committee believes that future conflicts against threats with anti-access/area-denial capabilities could see significant threats to U.S. airborne and ground tactical data links. However, the committee is concerned that many such data links are not currently designed or funded to operate against a robust electromagnetic warfare threat. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, to provide a classified briefing to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2013, that describes the potential vulnerabilities of current and planned tactical data links, along with a summary of development efforts to address these vulnerabilities. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps This section would re-designate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change the title of its secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. This section would formally recognize the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' status as an equal partner with the Navy. Section 902--Revisions to composition of transition plan for defense business enterprise architecture This section would revise the definition for legacy systems in section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, to align with the updated business systems investment review process. Subtitle B--Space Activities Section 911--National Security Space Satellite Reporting Policy This section would amend chapter 135 of title 10, United States Code, to add a notification, required of the Secretary of Defense, of each attempt by a foreign actor to disrupt, degrade, or destroy a U.S. national security space capability. The notification shall be submitted to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 48 hours after the Secretary determines that there is reason to believe such attempt occurred. Not later than 10 days after the date on which the Secretary determines that there is reason to believe such attempt occurred, further information should be provided including the name and a brief description of the national security space capability that was impacted by such attempt; a description of the attempt, including the foreign actor, the date and time of the attempt, and any related capability outage and the mission impact of such outage; and any other information considered relevant by the Secretary. The appropriate committees are defined as the congressional defense committees, and with respect to a U.S. national security space capability that is intelligence-related, the congressional intelligence committees. The committee notes the Director of National Intelligence's 2013 Statement for the Record Worldwide Threat Assessment that threats to vital United States space services will increase during the next decade as disruptive and destructive counter- space capabilities are developed. Section 912--National Security Space Defense and Protection This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council to conduct a review in response to the near-term and long-term threats to the national security space systems of the United States. The review should include: (1) The range of strategic options available to address such threats, in terms of deterring hostile actions, defeating hostile actions, or surviving hostile actions until such actions conclude; (2) Strategies and plans to counter such threats, including resilience, reconstitution, disaggregation, and other appropriate concepts; and (3) Existing and planned architectures, warfighter requirements, technology development, systems, workforce, or other factors related to addressing such threats. The National Research Council should also identify recommend courses of action to address the threats, including potential barriers or limiting factors in implementing such courses of action. This section would also modify section 911(f)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (10 U.S.C. 2271), to include a description of how the Department of Defense and the intelligence community plan to provide the necessary national security capabilities, through alternative space, airborne, or ground systems, if a foreign actor degrades, denies access to, or destroys U.S. national security space capabilities. Section 913--Space Acquisition Strategy This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, to establish a strategy for the multi-year procurement of commercial satellite services to include: (1) An analysis of financial or other benefits to multi-year acquisition approaches; (2) An analysis of the risks associated with such an approach; (3) An identification of methods to address planning, programming, budgeting, and execution challenges to such an approach, to include consideration of methods to address potential termination liability or cancellation costs associated with these types of contracts; (4) An identification of any changes needed in the requirements development and approval processes of the Department of Defense to facilitate effective and efficient implementation of such strategy; and, (5) An identification of any necessary changes to policy, procedures, regulation, or legislation in order for such strategy to be successful. This section would also require the strategy and the elements supporting it to be provided to the congressional defense committees by the Under Secretary not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 914--Space Control Mission Report This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the space control mission of the Department of Defense. Section 915--Responsive Launch This section would require a study by the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space on responsive, low-cost launch efforts to include a review of existing and past operationally responsive, low-cost launch capabilities; a technology assessment of various methods to develop an operationally responsive, low-cost launch capability; and an assessment of the viability of any other innovative methods, such as secondary payload adapters on existing launch vehicles. In addition, this section would require a report from the Executive Agent for Space regarding the results of the above mentioned study, as well as a consolidated plan for development within the Department of an operationally responsive, low-cost launch capability. The committee notes that there are multiple ongoing efforts in the Department, including Air Force, Army, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs. The committee is concerned that these efforts may be duplicative and are not fully coordinated across the Department. Subtitle C--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Matters Section 921--Revision of Secretary of Defense Authority to Engage in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection Activities This section would amend current statutory authority for the Secretary of Defense to authorize the conduct of those commercial activities necessary to provide security for authorized intelligence collection activities abroad undertaken by the Department of Defense. This section would: (1) Delete the requirement that the Secretary of Defense designate a single office within the Defense Intelligence Agency to be responsible for the management and supervision of all commercial activities authorized by the intelligence commercial activity statute (10 U.S.C. 431-437); (2) Change the annual audit requirement to a biennial audit requirement; (3) Add the congressional defense committees to the reporting requirement; and (4) Insert a definition of ``congressional intelligence committees'' for purposes of section 437 of title 10, United States Code. Section 922--Department of Defense Intelligence Priorities This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a written policy governing the internal coordination and prioritization of intelligence priorities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the military departments to improve identification of the intelligence needs of the Department of Defense. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to identify any significant intelligence gaps of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the military departments. The Secretary would provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees regarding the policy established under this section and any identified significant intelligence gaps. Section 923--Defense Clandestine Service This section would prohibit the use of 50 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014 for the Defense Clandestine Service to be obligated or expended for the Defense Clandestine Service until such time as the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate that the Defense Clandestine Service is designed primarily to fulfill priorities of the Department of Defense that are unique to the Department of Defense or otherwise unmet; and provide unique capabilities to the intelligence community (as defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)). This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to: design metrics that will be used to ensure that the Defense Clandestine Service is employed in the manner certified; provide annual assessments for 5-years based on the metrics established; submit prompt notifications of any significant changes; and provide quarterly briefings on deployments and collection activities. Section 924--Prohibition on National Intelligence Program Consolidation This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense to be used during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, to execute: the separation of the portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the National Intelligence Program from the rest of the Department of Defense budget; the consolidation of the portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the National Intelligence Program within the Department of Defense budget; or the establishment of a new appropriations account or appropriations account structure for such funds. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly brief the congressional defense and intelligence committees not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act on any planning relating to future execution that has occurred during the past two years and any anticipated future planning and related efforts. The committee is concerned that the executive branch has failed to notify the appropriate congressional committees about its continuing efforts to pursue consolidation of the portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the National Intelligence Program. Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters Section 931--Modification of Requirement for Inventory of Department of Defense Tactical Data Link Systems This section would modify the current requirement for an inventory of Department of Defense tactical data link systems to include an assessment of vulnerabilities that the systems may encounter in anti-access or area-denial environments. Section 932--Defense Science Board assessment of United States Cyber Command This section would require the Defense Science Board to conduct an independent assessment of the organization, missions, and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command. Section 933--Mission Analysis for Cyber Operations of Department of Defense This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a mission analysis of Department of Defense cyber operations and to provide a report on the results of the mission analysis to the congressional defense committees. It would also require the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to provide an assessment of the role of the National Guard in supporting Department of Defense cyber missions. The committee notes that the Defense Science Board recently completed a report titled Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat. In particular, the committee recognizes the need to address a key recommendation in the report that would require the Department to determine the mix of cyber, protected-conventional, and nuclear capabilities necessary for assured operation in the face of a full-spectrum adversary by designating a mix of forces necessary to conduct assured operations, including systems such as penetrating bombers, submarines with long range cruise missiles, Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS), and survivable senior leadership command and control. The committee believes the Department will need to address this recommendation as it conducts the mission analysis required by this section. In addition, the committee is aware that there is interest from the Department as well as Congress on how best to leverage the Reserve Component, including the National Guard, in the Department's organizing construct for cyber operations. While the committee supports these considerations, it is also concerned that current legislative proposals to dictate National Guard units for each of the states and territories is premature and may be detrimental to the overall national effort. In addition to the hefty price tag, which is estimated to be about $400.0 million per year, current proposals only address National Guard participation and do not include the Reserve Component. Whereas only the Army and the Air Force have National Guard units, all of the military services have Reserve Components that have unique authorities and capabilities that should be addressed by the national effort. The committee believes that more time is needed to evaluate full participation of the Reserve Components, including the implications and limitations of using National Guard forces in a ``title 32'' capacity, before broader action is taken. The committee encourages the Department to examine these issues in the course of the mission analysis required by this section. Section 934--Notification of Investigations Related to Compromise of Critical Program Information This section would require that the Secretary of Defense provide written notification to the congressional defense committees within 30 days of the initiation of any investigations carried out related to the potential compromise of Department of Defense critical program information related to weapon systems and other developmental activities, and within 30 days of the completion of any such investigations. Additionally, this section would require a report to be submitted to the congressional defense committees within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on all of the known network cyber intrusions from January 1, 2000, until August 1, 2013, resulting in compromise of critical program information. Elsewhere in this report, the committee would require the Secretary to provide a briefing on related information. Section 935--Additional Requirements Relating to the Software Licenses of the Department of Defense This section would require the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense to revise the reporting requirements of section 937 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 10 U.S.C. 223 note) to include new elements that would verify that the format of the process was verified by an independent third party, implement processes for validating and reporting registration and deregistration of new software, and update the timeline for implementation based on these new requirements. Subtitle E--Total Force Management Section 941--Requirement to Ensure Sufficient Levels of Government Oversight of Functions Closely Associated with Inherently Governmental Functions This section would amend sections 129a and 2330a of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that sufficient levels of government oversight are in place for contracted services and aligns current Department of Defense policies related to Total Force Management. Section 942--Five-Year Requirement for Certification of Appropriate Manpower Performance This section would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that all contractor positions performing inherently governmental functions have been eliminated. TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Counter-Drug Activities Counternarcotics Strategy in Central America The committee acknowledges the rise of crime and instability in Central America. In particular, countries such as the Republic of Honduras and the Republic of Guatemala are experiencing the brunt of a ``balloon effect'' of illicit trafficking and networking caused by both the stabilizing of the Republic of Colombia and the ongoing security issues in the United Mexican States. Central America now has the highest murder rates in the world, and is faced with constant violence and government instability. The committee recognizes the significant budget constraints throughout the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the committee also recognizes the national security implications of turmoil within the Western Hemisphere. Therefore, the committee supports the efforts in the region of the Department of Defense and the Department of State, and more specifically U.S. Southern Command. An ongoing strategy and vision for partnership with Central American nations is vital to securing regional safety and security. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by October 1, 2013, on the Department of Defense's strategy for combating the corruption, illicit trafficking, and violence in the Central American region that could affect U.S. national security. This briefing should outline partnership opportunities with neighboring nations, current intelligence, and future metrics of success in the region. Humanitarian Efforts in U.S. Southern Command The committee again notes the absence of a hospital ship deployment to the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility for the second consecutive year. The committee also recognizes the difficult budget environment facing the U.S. Navy and all military services. As the Department of the Navy weighs its priorities, the committee notes the vital presence the USNS Comfort or USNS Mercy bring to nations all over the Western Hemisphere. Humanitarian missions carried out by hospital ships are a key tool in developing relationships and partnerships with the neighbors of the United States. As a result of the vacuum the lack of humanitarian presence has created, other nations have stepped in to fill the need, including the deployment of a Chinese hospital ship in the Caribbean sea in the fall of 2011. The committee continues to encourage the Department of the Navy to consider an ongoing presence in the Caribbean, including a scheduled humanitarian deployment to the region. National Guard Bureau Counter-drug Mission The committee acknowledges the importance of the National Guard counter-drug mission as a part of ensuring the security of the U.S. homeland. The National Guard counter-drug mission is vital to successfully protecting the Nation's borders; however, the committee is aware of the budget constraints the National Guard Bureau faces in fully funding and operating its counter-drug mission. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2013, regarding the operational capabilities and future counter-drug mission set of the National Guard. The briefing should include information on the available resources and missions of the state partnership programs, border security initiatives, and counter-drug schools, including any anticipated gaps in resources. The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the committee, by not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report on the capabilities and policy issues associated with the counter-drug mission of the National Guard on the southwestern border of the United States. Operation Martillo The committee recognizes that the U.S. Southern Command mission Operation Martillo has been under way since January 2012. Initially a 6-month operation, Martillo has been extended indefinitely to combat illicit traffickers by focusing on the littoral waterways from South America to Central America as a way to transport narcotics. In the year since the operation began, confiscation of narcotics and prosecutions of criminals have risen. The committee also recognizes the support and partnership of the 18 partner-nations in making Operation Martillo successful. As the operation moves forward, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2013, on Operation Martillo. The briefing should outline: (1) The assets being used specifically for the mission by both U.S. Armed Forces and each partner nation; (2) Each partner nation's contributions to the mission in the form of assets, capabilities, funding, and manpower; (3) The mission's future goals in terms of manpower, funding, and focus and any challenges in meeting such goals; and (4) The metrics in place to determine the effectiveness of the mission over the course of the next fiscal year. The committee supports U.S. Southern Command's efforts and remains committed to the safety and security of the Nation and the Western Hemisphere. Transition of Tethered Aerostat Radar System Program The committee is aware of the transition of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) program from the U.S. Air Force to the Department of Homeland Security. This transition is under way only after the U.S. Air Force sent a statement of program cancellation to the contractor in January 2013. While the transition to the Department of Homeland Security has been delayed, the committee notes that the TARS program, which is in place along the southern border of the continental United States and the Caribbean, is an important tool in fighting illicit trafficking across the U.S. border. The committee encourages both the U.S. Air Force and the Department of Homeland Security to continue to facilitate a smooth transition of the TARS program, with the goal of preventing any gaps in service or capability in the eight locations. Furthermore, the committee acknowledges the gaps in maintenance of several of the aerostats. As the Department of Homeland Security takes over the program by October 1, 2013, the committee encourages both the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to mitigate these maintenance issues and ensure all eight aerostats are fully functional. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2013, on the status of the transition of the TARS program, including steps being taken by both departments to support continuation of coverage. U.S. Southern Command Assets The committee recognizes the ongoing budget crisis facing the Nation's military. As this crisis continues, U.S. Southern Command, along with all other combatant commands, must prioritize its missions. In light of the decision by the Department of the Navy to establish a zero-ship presence in the Caribbean, other military services will also have to consider realigning their assets. As U.S. Southern Command moves forward in its mission set, the committee acknowledges the possibility of current assets being insufficient to meet the needs of the mission. Nevertheless, the committee believes that stability in the Western Hemisphere is a national security imperative. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to provide the House Committee on Armed Services with information on any resultant capability gaps for U.S. Southern Command against the full spectrum of the command's missions, including the allocation of forces and assets within the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility for the past 5 years, and the projected availability of forces and assets for fiscal year 2014 within the region. Other Matters Assessment of Military Construction Project The Department of the Air Force is the executive agent responsible for the design and construction of a $285.0 million development at the Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom. This development proposes to provide worldwide communications to the warfighter across a wide spectrum of operations. The initial phase of this development is a $12.0 million main gate complex that is designed to improve traffic congestion and support the segregation of large vehicles during their inspection process. The committee is concerned that the Department has not completed an assessment of the wide range of options available to accommodate the mission proposed at the Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2013, with the following information: (1) Analysis of alternatives, including the strategic imperative of intelligence functions being performed in the United Kingdom versus co-locating with the combatant command headquarters or in the United States; (2) Analysis of the cost-benefits and efficiencies of co-locating the intelligence functions of U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) and European Command (USEUCOM); (3) Description of direct, indirect, and burden- sharing contributions by the host nation in the construction of the new facilities at Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom; (4) Description of the method in which the current requirement is presently being met; why the current facilities are not sufficient to meet the current requirement; and how the new proposed facilities will fully meet the current requirement without requiring an expansion of either the mission or the newly constructed facility; (5) Description of the political, economic, military and legal requirements that require the functions to be completed in the current host-nation instead of the United States or the Federal Republic of Germany; (6) Description of the current organizational structure of intelligence components of USAFRICOM and USEUCOM, including division of labor between United Kingdom-based staffs and the Germany-based headquarters and an evaluation of the current mission and staffing in order to better understand the needed requirements and resources to accomplish the mission; and (7) Description of how USEUCOM and USAFRICOM are implementing and enforcing the appropriate U.S. Government policies and regulations, including identification of exceptions, to ensure Royal Air Force Molesworth-based Department of Defense civilians are not exceeding the 5-year overseas requirement and are in compliance with the Living Quarters Allowance regulations. Furthermore, the committee recommends no funding, a reduction of $12 million, for the initial phase of development at the Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom. Combatant Command Headquarters Personnel and Resources Requirements The committee is concerned with the results of the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recent report on five of the six geographic combatant commands. The results of the report show that the authorized military and civilian positions and mission support costs for the combatant commands and their subordinate commands have grown considerably over the last decade. The GAO report found that the authorized military and civilian positions increased by almost 50 percent between fiscal years 2001-12, to approximately 10,100 authorized positions. Additionally, the report found the mission and headquarters support costs more than doubled from fiscal years 2007-12, to over $1.1 billion. While the committee recognizes these figures include the establishment of two new geographic combatant commands (U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Africa Command), today's fiscal environment requires stronger oversight of the combatant commands' resources. The committee is concerned about the four primary weaknesses that challenge the Department of Defense's ability to effectively manage and oversee these combatant commands. First, the committee is concerned that the Department does not thoroughly and periodically evaluate the commands' overall mission and personnel requirements to ensure the commands are effectively managing their personnel resources to meet their assigned missions. The committee believes the Department should conduct periodic evaluations of the combatant commands and supporting commands, including whether their existing size and structure is effectively positioned to meet current missions. Second, the committee is also concerned that the Department cannot track all the personnel assigned to the combatant commands and their subordinate commands. The committee believes the Department should integrate existing systems to identify, manage, and track all assigned personnel. Third, the committee is concerned about the lack of visibility and oversight of the Joint Staff and the combatant commands over the service component commands. This lack of visibility into personnel and resources makes it difficult for the Department to determine whether functions and tasks at the combatant commands are being duplicated or overlap with the component commands. The committee believes the Department should develop and implement a formal process to gather information on the service component commands to gain better transparency and oversight of these organizations. Fourth, the committee believes that the services and combatant commands should provide greater detailed information on authorized positions and mission funding totals in their annual operation and budget documents for submission to Congress. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2013, on any changes to processes and procedures to address each weakness identified above, including any suggested changes to law that they believe may be required. Comptroller General Review of Functional Combatant Commands The committee again notes that as the challenges to national security have expanded, the Department of Defense faces missions of increasing scope, variety, and complexity around the world. To support these missions, the Department of Defense has established three functional combatant commands, each with thousands of personnel, which provide unique capabilities in support of the Department's other components. These functional combatant commands are responsible for specific types of operational support, specifically: U.S. Transportation Command is responsible for air, land, and sea transport; U.S. Strategic Command is responsible for strategic nuclear, space, and other operations, to include cyberspace; and U.S. Special Operations Command is responsible for organizing, training, and equipping special operations forces. In May 2013, the Government Accountability Office reported that the authorized military and civilian positions and mission support costs devoted to five of the Department's geographic combatant commands had grown considerably and that there were weaknesses in its processes to size and oversee the combatant commands, to include the functional combatant commands. At a time of growing economic and fiscal constraints, the committee believes it is important that the Department of Defense ensure the functional combatant commands have the appropriate levels of personnel and resources to effectively meet mission requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the personnel and resources of the functional combatant commands, supporting military service component commands, and other assigned task forces, and to submit a report on the findings to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2014. The review should address the following: (1) What are the trends in the resources (authorized positions and mission support costs) devoted to the functional combatant commands and their service component commands between fiscal years 2001-12? (2) To what extent has the Department of Defense examined the size and structure of the functional combatant commands for efficiencies? (3) What, if any, challenges does the Department of Defense face in appropriately sizing the functional combatant and their components given their unique capabilities and global responsibilities? Comptroller General Review of Medical Countermeasures Against Genetically Engineered Bio-Terror Agents The committee recognizes that development and deployment of safe, effective medical countermeasures against biological weapons and agents of concern remain an urgent priority for the U.S. Government. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), under the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services, is working with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense (DOD), as well as other agencies, to shape and execute an aggressive research program to develop more effective medical countermeasures. The committee notes that since 2007, the Department of Defense has initiated efforts to strengthen homeland defense and homeland security by developing broad-spectrum medical countermeasures against the threat of genetically engineered bio-terror agents. Additional initiatives that the Department of Defense is planning include the development of advanced detection and deterrent technologies and initiatives to facilitate full-scale civil-military exercises. While the Department of Defense planned to spend over $1.0 billion on these initiatives between fiscal years 2007-12, it remains unclear how it has coordinated its programs to complement those of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The degree to which the Department of Defense has met program goals to improve interagency planning for complex homeland security contingencies also remains unclear. The committee remains committed to a robust medical research and development program focused on military health issues, including medical, biological, and chemical defense. However, to assist the committee in conducting its oversight of DOD's initiatives to develop medical countermeasures, coordinate programs, and improve interagency contingency planning, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a comprehensive review of medical countermeasures against genetically engineered bio-terror agents, and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014, on the findings and any recommendations. The report should include, but not be limited to: (1) The status of DOD's initiatives to develop countermeasures for genetically engineered bio-terror agents and advanced detection and deterrent technologies; (2) The extent to which the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense have coordinated their research programs to ensure efforts are complementary and not duplicative; (3) The extent to which the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies have planned and executed full-scale civil-military exercises to improve interagency coordination; (4) The cost basis for DOD's various programs and initiatives to develop countermeasures for genetically engineered bio-terror agents and related detection and deterrent technologies; and (5) The nature and extent of potential program overlap and duplication with programs of other Federal agencies that could benefit from consolidations or improved coordination to achieve cost savings. Comptroller General Review of Planning and Preparedness for Threats Posed by Non-Traditional Chemical Agents The committee notes a growing awareness of the threat posed by novel chemical weapon agents or toxicants known as Non- Traditional Agents (NTAs). The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) states that the globalization of the world's chemical industry, coupled with scientific breakthroughs, increases the possibility of NTAs being used against U.S. and allied forces. Furthermore, the QDR states that the Department of Defense (DOD) has increased its resources for research and development of technologies to meet and defeat these emerging threats. NTAs are allegedly binary nerve agents significantly more lethal than third-generation chemical weapons, such as VX nerve gas. The current international agreements regarding chemical warfare do not adequately control the relatively simple formulas for NTAs that have been published. Consequently, the risk of illicit NTA production by various state and non-state actors is heightened compared to traditional chemical agents. NTAs could pose a significant threat to DOD personnel as they may be capable of defeating protective equipment, such as Mission Oriented Protective Posture masks and suits as well as evading chemical weapon detection tools. In the past, the Government Accountability Office has reported that most U.S. Army units tasked with providing chemical and biological defense support are not adequately staffed, equipped, or trained to perform their missions against traditional chemical agents. The Deparment's preparedness for NTAs may be even more important given the unique nature of this emerging threat. To assist the committee in conducting its oversight of the Department of Defense's increased resources for research and development of technologies to meet and defeat emerging threats posed by NTAs, novel chemical weapon agents, or similar toxicants, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the Department of Defense's planning and preparedness for threats posed by non- traditional chemical agents, and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2014, with the findings and any recommendations. The report should include, but not be limited to: (1) The extent to which the Department of Defense has conducted an analysis of the threat NTAs pose to DOD personnel, including the risk posed by bioregulators capable of inducing profound physiologic effects, and developed countermeasures, defenses, and mitigation strategies to address the threat posed by NTAs; (2) The extent to which DOD's chemical and biological defense units that are tasked with chemical and biological defense support to combat units and commands are adequately staffed, equipped, and trained to deal with NTAs; (3) The extent to which DOD's chemical and biological defense units that are tasked with a homeland defense mission, especially National Guard and Reserve units, are adequately staffed, equipped, and trained to deal with NTAs; (4) How much the Department is planning to spend in fiscal year 2014 on research and development of technologies to address the threat of NTAs, and how much of an increase in resources this represents over fiscal year 2013 levels; (5) The nature and extent of potential counter-NTA research and development program overlap and duplication between, for example, defense agencies, the military services, and national laboratories/federally funded research and development centers; and (6) Which counter-NTA programs or efforts could benefit from consolidations, improved coordination, or other actions to achieve financial or other benefits, such as increased efficiencies. Comptroller General Review of Role of the Army and the Marine Corps in Access-denied Areas As U.S. forces draw down from operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Department of Defense is focusing on anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges posed by potential adversaries elsewhere around the globe. The committee believes the Air Sea Battle concept and other recent publications highlight air, maritime, space, and cyberspace operations, and appear to rely heavily on Navy and Air Force assets and capabilities. However, the committee is concerned that less attention has been paid to the role of the Army and the Marine Corps in an A2/AD environment. The committee believes the Army and the Marine Corps, like each of the services, must be trained, manned, and equipped to respond to a full spectrum of challenges, consistent with the roles and missions of each service. However, given the uncertainty surrounding the role of the Army and the Marine Corps in an A2/ AD environment, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an independent review that evaluates: (1) Missions envisioned for the Army and the Marine Corps in an A2/AD environment; (2) Alternatives being considered by the Department for meeting such missions; (3) The operational, cost, and other assumptions underlying the Department's analyses; and (4) Steps being taken to align Army and Marine Corps force structure with emerging A2/AD missions, the cost implications of the planned actions, and the extent to which such actions potentially duplicate the capabilities of other services or limit the ability of the Army and the Marine Corps to fulfill other missions. The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit the results of the review to the congressional defense committees by April 15, 2014. Comptroller General Review of U.S. Central Command Headquarters The committee notes that since fiscal year 2001, the resources provided to U.S. Central Command and its supporting service components have grown dramatically to manage wars in both the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq, including directing U.S. operational forces, supporting counterinsurgency operations, and assisting host nation security forces in providing for their own defense. According to Department of Defense reports provided to Congress, military and civilian manpower at U.S. Central Command has more than doubled since fiscal year 2001, not including the contractors who support the headquarters. With the drawdown of operational forces in Iraq and the impending drawdown in Afghanistan, the committee believes it is important to reexamine the levels of headquarters manpower and mission support costs needed by U.S. Central Command. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct as assessment of the following: (1) The trends in manpower and mission support costs devoted to the headquarters of U.S. Central Command and its supporting service component commands since fiscal year 2001; (2) The steps the Department of Defense has taken to date to reexamine the size and structure of the headquarters of U.S. Central Command and its service component commands in light of the drawdown of forces in its area of responsibility and changing U.S. military strategy; and (3) The future plans for U.S. Central Command and its service component commands, including any plans to maintain headquarters in forward locations such as the State of Kuwait and the State of Qatar. The Comptroller General may provide additional information deemed appropriate to provide the committee insight into the Department of Defense's plans for the headquarters functions of the U.S Central Command. The Comptroller General should provide the preliminary results of the study to the congressional defense committees by April 15, 2014, with the final report to follow as soon as practicable thereafter. Defense Forensic Enterprise The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has used expeditionary forensics successfully to identify, target and disrupt terrorists and enemy combatants in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee is also aware that the Department has taken multiple steps towards establishing an enduring capability in this impactful area. The Department issued directive 5205.15E in 2011 to establish a policy regarding the Defense Forensic Enterprise (DFE), which assigned to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) a number of responsibilities including the development of a strategic plan to guide the activities of the DFE. However, given the important impact of the use of expeditionary forensics for U.S. counter-terrorism activities, the committee is concerned that two years after the issuance of directive 5205.15E, the required strategic plan is not yet finalized. The committee notes that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently completed a study on defense forensics, in which it made several recommendations to facilitate the establishment of the DFE. Therefore, the committee directs the USD(AT&L) to set a date by August 30, 2013 to finalize and publish the strategic plan for the Defense Forensic Enterprise. Furthermore, the committee directs the USD(AT&L) to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2014 which describes the actions being taken to address the recommendations made within the GAO report on Defense Forensics. Detailed Report on Defense Efficiencies The committee notes that over the last 3 fiscal years, the previous Secretaries of the Department of Defense have developed budget submissions that contained directed efficiencies for the Department. However, the policies and procedures on the implementation of these efficiencies have not been detailed to Congress. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2013, on the following: (1) A detailed accounting of how departmental fiscal policies, dating from fiscal year 2012 to the present, support compliance with the discretionary spending limit applied to the security category in fiscal year 2013 by section 251(c)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99- 177); and (2) A detailed accounting of how departmental fiscal policies will support compliance with the discretionary spending limit applied to the security category for each of fiscal years 2014-21 by section 251(c)(2) of Public Law 99-177. Energy Security Assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is required every four years to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), pursuant to section 118 of title 10, United States Code. The QDR is intended to provide a strategic defense review of plans necessary to execute successfully the full range of missions called for in the national defense strategy. The committee believes an essential element of any defense plan is the importance of energy security as a fundamental component of the Department of Defense's ability to project power and enable combat capability for operations. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81), energy security was defined as ``having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential requirements.'' Noting that the committee report (H. Rept. 112- 78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 urged the Secretary to conduct a more comprehensive QDR review, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the final assessment includes details regarding the importance of, and funding necessary to achieve, energy security. Humanitarian Mine Action and Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Technologies The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program is under- utilized and under-resourced, to include research, development, testing, and evaluation efforts. The committee notes that while the committee has authorized $10.0 million per fiscal year for this program in the past, the Department of Defense routinely commits less than $3.0 million per year towards global HMA requirements. Because of these shortfalls, the committee notes that HMA programs and projects are unable or unlikely to contribute to Geographic Combatant Commander theater security cooperation strategies in a substantive and enduring way, and that the efforts of the Department of Defense are potentially out of balance with larger U.S. Government HMA and security force assistance goals. Furthermore, the Department of Defense and commercial industry have invested heavily in improvised explosive device defeating technology over the past decade, and the committee believes that this technology should be better utilized within the HMA program. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, that outlines the strategic direction of the Department of Defense's HMA program, to include efforts to improve research, development, test, and evaluation, and ways to ensure coordination mechanisms exist to determine whether counter-improvised explosive technology could be applicable to HMA. In addition, the report should outline ways to improve interagency coordination with similar programs under way in the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Hybrid Airship Technology The committee is aware that hybrid airship technology has the potential to provide much needed capability for the Department of Defense, particularly with regards to cargo lift and logistics. In the past, the committee has supported the development and demonstration of hybrid airship technology, and continues to monitor developments with interest. The committee is aware of recent developments that have demonstrated innovative capabilities in airship design and lift. The committee is also aware, however, that airship technology still requires additional, more rigorous development and demonstration. As noted by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, ``current conventional airships are capable of accommodating payloads of only a few thousand pounds. In order to achieve the massive payloads envisioned by air-logistic theorists, significant technical advances and resource investments must be made.'' The committee continues to support efforts to transition from rudimentary technology demonstrators to operational prototypes in relevant environments. The committee encourages the Air Force and Transportation Command to work with industry to more fully develop the capability requirements and mission analysis needed to pursue such an operational prototype. Nuclear Deterrence Education in the Armed Forces The committee is aware that the military departments and the Joint Staff have invested considerable time and attention into overhauling and improving the instruction provided to officers and enlisted personnel concerning the U.S. nuclear deterrent mission. Following the Minot and Taiwan incidents involving the improper and unauthorized handling by Air Force personnel of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon components, and the termination by then-Defense Secretary Gates of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force, former Secretary of Energy and Defense James Schlesinger undertook a comprehensive two-phase report on Nuclear Weapons Management in the Armed Forces. In announcing the Phase I findings, Secretary Schlesinger stated that, ``Over the years . . . what has been the long-time practice during the Cold War and subsequent years of developing the theory and doctrine of deterrence has more or less disappeared not only from the Air Force schools, more generally from military schools . . . the doctrine of deterrence has, to a large extent, been forgotten.'' The committee has reviewed internal professional military education reviews of the status of improvements to instruction in the ``doctrine of deterrence.'' The committee notes that the services, particularly the Navy, have determined that there are ongoing challenges and weaknesses in instruction in this subject matter. The committee also notes that challenges remain in educating airmen on their role in safeguarding national security. Educating the warfighters who execute the daily mission of nuclear deterrence remains a critical element to ensuring the level of excellence required for the mission. The committee encourages the services and the Joint Staff to keep the same level of focus on this subject matter that was brought to bear by then-Secretary Gates in 2008. Nuclear Weapons Council and Commonality in Nuclear Forces and Nuclear Warheads The committee understands that the Nuclear Weapons Council has approved a long-term plan to increase the use of common components and systems across U.S. nuclear delivery systems and the nuclear stockpile. In the long-term, this approach is expected to yield significant cost savings, may enable novel approaches to mitigating risks through deployment of interoperable warheads that can be utilized on multiple delivery systems, and may facilitate reductions in the number of nuclear weapons held in reserve. However, the committee urges the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration to use caution in implementing this approach to ensure that commonality does not lead to unacceptable risk of widespread impacts to the deterrent force, should a technical risk cause a common component or subsystem to fail. To better understand the Nuclear Weapons Council's long- term plan for interoperability and commonality, the committee directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council, in coordination with appropriate Members of the Council, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by October 31, 2013, on the feasibility, cost savings, benefits, risks, timelines, impacts on the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and impacts to stockpile stewardship and any potential need for underground testing associated with the long-term plan for interoperability and commonality. Specifically, the briefing should describe: (1) The Nuclear Weapons Council's approach for understanding and managing risks associated with commonality in nuclear delivery systems, nuclear warheads, and their components; (2) The Council's methods for evaluating trade-offs between the risk versus the cost savings of commonality; (3) The potential for streamlining the maintenance of nuclear weapons through interoperability and commonality; and (4) The long-term plan for interoperability and commonality across delivery systems and warheads, including impacts to workload and capacity in the nuclear security enterprise. Personnel Growth at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and the Service Secretariats The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is supported by vast headquarters organizations that have grown over time, consisting of thousands of personnel in multiple layers of management. At a time of growing economic and fiscal constraints, the committee believes it is important that the Department of Defense ensures that its headquarters personnel are efficiently aligned with the missions. The committee believes that the Department must continue to reduce overhead and improve its business operations, particularly within its headquarters organizations. Moreover, the committee believes that this multi-layered structure breeds duplication and impedes timely decision-making at the Department as well as responsiveness to Congress. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) assists the Secretary in performing his duties and responsibilities for oversight, policy development, planning, resource management, and fiscal and program evaluation at the Department. OSD staff currently includes more than 2,600 military and civilian personnel, with an unknown number of supporting contractors, and these numbers appear to have grown nearly 40 percent since 2001. In addition, the Secretary is supported by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose staff creates and distributes guidance for combatant forces' unified strategic direction, among other functions. The Joint Staff now includes more than 4,200 personnel and has nearly tripled since 2001. This growth is due, in part, to absorbing some functions from the now-defunct U.S. Joint Forces Command, but the ``joint community'' appears to be growing overall. In May 2013, the Government Accountability Office found that, even excluding U.S. Central Command, the geographic combatant commands have grown by nearly 50 percent since 2001. Outside the joint community, each of the Secretaries of the military departments has hundreds of military and civilian staff as well as numerous and proliferating offices supporting them and assisting the oversight of each of the military services. However, reliable information about the size of these service organizations is not readily available, limiting congressional oversight. Given the need to minimize overhead at the Department of Defense, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the resources devoted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military department's secretariats and military staffs. The Comptroller General should provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by April 15, 2014, on the results of the review. The review should cover the following: (1) What are the trends in the resources (authorized positions and mission support costs) devoted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military department's secretariats and military staffs for fiscal years 2001-13? (2) To what extent does the Department have processes in place to manage and oversee the resources of these headquarters organizations, including examining resources being devoted to contractor support staff? (3) To what extent has the Department reviewed these organizations to determine whether overlap or duplication exists in the types of support being provided to the Secretary of Defense within or across these various headquarters organizations and whether there are opportunities for efficiencies? Preventing Unfair Trade Practices in Military Equipment Sales The committee notes that offsets are illegal under many international trade agreements and generally considered a violation of the principles of the European Union treaty, with the exception of certain defense procurements. The committee believes that any free trade agreement negotiations between the United States and the European Union should include the issue of prohibiting offset agreements with respect to the sale of defense equipment by U.S. companies to European Union member states that would require U.S. companies to reinvest a percentage of the value of any resulting contract in the importing country. Replacement Plan for E-4B The Air Force's fleet of E-4B aircraft serve as the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) for the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior leaders. According to a 2012 Air Force fact-sheet, ``in case of national emergency or destruction of ground command control centers, the aircraft provides a highly survivable command, control, and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities.'' The E-4 fleet first entered service in 1974, and as the aircraft continues to age, sustainment efforts grow increasingly difficult and costly. Sustaining the fleet into the 2020s may become progressively difficult or unmanageable as commercial airlines continue to retire their fleet of 747-200 aircraft and spare parts and maintenance providers become unavailable. The committee is also aware of the significant potential cost of replacing the E-4B aircraft. The Air Force has not yet developed a plan to replace these critical command and control aircraft or a sustainable life-extension option. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 30, 2014, on the Air Force's plan to replace or sustainably extend the E-4B fleet and its associated capabilities. The report should contain an assessment of various potential options, costs, and a schedule for a replacement program. Report on Implementation of Acquisition Strategy To Minimize Costs for Defense Base Act Insurance Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) required that the Secretary of Defense adopt an acquisition strategy for Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance that minimizes the cost of such insurance for both the Department and its contractors. It also required the Department to submit a report to Congress, within 270 days of the law's enactment, on the acquisition strategy adopted. The committee is aware that the Department, after having submitted in September 2009 the report required by section 843, has been working through the steps to implement its acquisition strategy. The committee notes that several years have now passed since 2009, and therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2015 on its progress towards implementing the lower-cost acquisition strategy required by section 843. Report on Security Exemptions and Waivers for U.S. Nuclear Forces The committee commends the Department of Defense for its sustained commitment to ensuring the security of U.S. nuclear weapons. In particular, the committee recognizes the efforts undertaken by the Air Force and the Department of Defense to bring renewed focus, leadership, and resources to nuclear weapons security following the grave security incidents seen in the Air Force in 2006 and 2007. The committee encourages the Department to sustain continual efforts to improve nuclear weapons security (operational excellence and a culture of continual improvement are required). To better understand the Department's efforts to improve nuclear weapons security, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by November 15, 2013, on efforts to improve nuclear weapons security in the Department of Defense. In particular, the report should list any current exemptions or waivers to nuclear weapons security requirements or guidance, as well as the Department's plans and timelines for mitigating the risk from, and eventually eliminating the need for, such exemptions or waivers. Reporting Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution Elsewhere in this report, the committee addresses oversight of sensitive military operations. The committee notes that its oversight of military operations is in addition to all reporting pursuant to, or consistent with, section 4 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.). Secure Internet Protocol Router Network for the Congressional Defense Committees The Department of Defense maintains a classified Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) to provide secure networking among Department of Defense components, as well as with selected interagency partners. The committee is aware that access to the network is available to much of the executive branch, but to virtually none of the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. The committee believes that having access to SIPRNET would improve its ability to conduct oversight of the Department of Defense, as well as help save funds by eliminating printing, travel, shipping, and courier costs of required communications. The committee notes that it is supplied with the means for secure telephony and believes this provides a suitable precedent to expand into other methods of secure collaboration between the Department and Congress. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2014, on extending SIPRNET access to the aforementioned committees by December 1, 2014. The briefing should include an assessment of the operational policies for implementing SIPRNET, as well as the costs, logistics, security considerations, and other matters the Secretary deems pertinent. Sustainment of Sociocultural Understanding Capabilities The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has invested in a number of programs over the past 10 years to provide increased sociocultural understanding at tactical, operational and strategic levels. The committee has been supportive of many of these capabilities, such as the Army's Human Terrain System, the Secretary of Defense's Minerva Initiative, and the cross-service Human, Social, Cultural, Behavioral Modeling program. Each program has served an important role in filling capability gaps for the Department, especially with regards to understanding the human dimensions of the counterinsurgency fights in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. However, the committee is concerned that with the drawdown of forces in Afghanistan and the refocus to the Asia-Pacific region, there may be a growing sense that some of the capabilities that proved so useful in the Middle East will be of little or no value in potential contingencies rooted in the Asia Pacific region. The committee firmly believes that sociocultural understanding will remain important in the Middle East as it grows in importance in Africa and Asia, though needs will be somewhat different and may require slightly different instantiations based on the differences in the operational environment. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the Department's plans for maintaining and adapting existing sociocultural capabilities, as well as development for new capabilities to meet the current strategic guidance. The report should identify the programs either in development or that have been deployed that support sociocultural understanding, and whether they will be sustained across the Future Years Defense Program. Elements of the report should also identify any capability gaps that exist based on the recent guidance shifting the Department's focus to the Asia-Pacific region. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Financial Matters Section 1001--General Transfer Authority This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year 2014 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the total amount transferred under this authority to $3.5 billion. This section would also require prompt notification to Congress of each transfer made. Section 1002--Budgetary Effects of This Act This section would specify that the budgetary effects of this Act for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139) will be determined by reference to a statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. Section 1003--Audit of Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2018 Financial Statements This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the Department of Defense's ongoing Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness process and support the goal of audit readiness across the Department by 2017. This section would also require that a full and complete audit takes place for fiscal year 2018. Section 1004--Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to transfer up to $150.0 million to the nuclear weapons program of the National Nuclear Security Administration if the amount authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for that program is less than $8.4 billion (the amount specified for fiscal year 2014 in the report required by section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)). Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counter-drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia This section would extend, by 1 year, the unified counter- drug and counterterrorism campaign in the Republic of Colombia originally authorized by section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), and most recently amended by section 1013 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). Section 1012--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces to Provide Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counterterrorism Activities This section would extend, by 1 year, the support for joint task forces to support law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism activities, as originally authorized by section 1022(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), and most recently amended by section 1014 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). Section 1013--Two-Year Extension of Authority to Provide Additional Support for Counter-drug Activities of Certain Foreign Governments This section would extend, by 2 years, the authority to provide support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments, originally authorized by subsection (a)(2) of section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), and most recently amended by section 1006 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). Section 1014--Sense of Congress Regarding the National Guard Counter- narcotic Program This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the importance of the National Guard Counter Narcotics Program as a tool in combating drug trafficking into the United States and the need for continued support and funding of such programs, especially along the Southwest border. Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards Section 1021--Clarification of Sole Ownership Resulting from Ship Donations at No Cost to the Navy This section would clarify the current ship donation statute, section 7306 of title 10, United States Code, and authorize the Secretary of the Navy to donate any vessel stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. Section 1022--Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the retirement, inactivation, or storage of a cruiser or dock landing ship. This section would provide an exception for the retirement of the U.S.S. Denver (LPD 9). This section would further provide for transfer authority for the purpose of providing sufficient appropriations to support the modernization of seven cruisers. If requested by the Secretary of Defense, the committee believes the following transfers should be included: OPN Line 0960, $662.7 million; OPN Line 2312, $1.8 million; OPN Line 2360, $6.6 million; OPN Line 2915, $13.7 million; OPN Line 3050, $13.4 million; OPN Line 3216, $20.8 million; OPN Line 5530, $4.6 million; WPN Line 4223, $91.1 million; and RDTE Line 1447, $100.0 million. The total transfer authority is $914.7 million. Section 1023--Repair of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards This section would amend subsection (a) of section 7310 of title 10, United States Code, to designate naval vessels that do not have a homeport to be treated as being homeported in the United States or Guam with regards to repair and maintenance of those vessels. Additionally, this section would define the term voyage repair. Section 1024--Sense of Congress Regarding a Balanced Future Naval Force This section would provide the Sense of Congress that additional funding should be prioritized toward shipbuilding efforts and that Department of Navy budget projections should realistically anticipate the true investment to meet force structure goals. Section 1025--Authority for Short-term Extension or Renewal of Leases for Vessels Supporting the Transit Protection System Escort Program This section would allow the Secretary of the Navy to extend or renew the lease of not more than four blocking vessels supporting the Transit Protection System Escort Program. This section would also require the Secretary, prior to extending or renewing such a lease, to submit to the congressional defense committees a notification of the proposed extension or renewal, along with a detailed description of the term of the proposed contract and a justification for extending or renewing the lease, as opposed to obtaining the capability through purchase of such vessels. The committee notes that the requirement for the vessels appears to be an enduring requirement and is aware that the Secretary is conducting a business case analysis to determine the most cost-effective manner to obtain the capability provided by the vessels. The committee awaits the outcome of this analysis, and it encourages the Secretary to appropriately address funding for this requirement in the fiscal year 2015 President's budget request. Subtitle D--Counterterrorism Section 1030--Clarification of Procedures for Use of Alternate Members on Military Commissions This section would clarify procedures for use of alternate members of military commissions. Section 1031--Modification of Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program Reporting Requirement This section would modify the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program to require additional annual reporting requirements. Section 1032--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or Modify Facilities in the United States To House Detainees Transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, to modify or construct any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any detainee transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense. Section 1033--Requirements for Certifications Relating to the Transfer of Detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to transfer or release, beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, individuals detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within a foreign country or any other foreign entity. This prohibition would apply unless the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, provides a written certification to Congress addressing several requirements at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such individual. This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any funds for the transfer of any such individual to the custody or effective control of a foreign country or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the same country or entity who engaged in terrorist activity subsequent to their transfer. This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the general prohibition against transfers to a foreign country where there has been a confirmed case of recidivism as well as two of the requirements for other transfers. In these instances, the Secretary of Defense must determine that alternative actions will be taken, that it is not possible to certify the risks have been completely eliminated, and that actions taken will substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism. This section would require, in the event the Secretary of Defense uses the waiver, that he provide a report that includes a copy of the waiver, determination, a statement of the basis for the determination, a summary of the alternative actions to be taken, and information on the detainee's record of cooperation while in DOD custody and any agreements in place to provide for the detainee's continuing cooperation after transfer. This section would also authorize the Secretary, for purposes of assessing the risk that a detainee will engage in terrorist activity if released for either a certification or national security waiver, to give favorable consideration to any detainee who has cooperated with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities pursuant to a pre-trial agreement while in DOD custody, and for whom appropriate agreements and mechanisms are in place to provide for continued cooperation with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities following transfer. Section 1034--Prohibition on the Use Of Funds for the Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba This section would prohibit the use of any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to be used during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, to transfer or release detainees at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions. Section 1035--Unclassified Summary of Information Relating to Individuals Detained at Parwan, Afghanistan This section would require the Secretary of Defense to make publicly available an unclassified summary relating to individuals detained by the Department of Defense at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) at any time during the past 2 years who have been determined to represent an ``enduring security threat'' to the United States. Section 1036--Assessment of Affiliates and Adherents of Al-Qaeda Outside the United States This section would require an assessment to be conducted by the President, acting through the Secretary of Defense, of: any group operating outside the United States that is an affiliate or adherent of, or otherwise related to, Al Qaeda; a summary of relevant information relating to each such group; an assessment of whether each group is part of or substantially supporting Al Qaeda or the Taliban, or constitutes an associated force that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; and the criteria used to determine the nature and extent of each group's relationship to Al Qaeda. The assessment would be required to be submitted to the congressional defense committees within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1037--Designation of Department of Defense Senior Official for Facilitating the Transfer of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to designate a senior Department of Defense official as the official with principal responsibility for coordination and management of the transfer of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Secretary of Defense would also set forth the responsibilities of that senior official with respect to such transfers. Section 1038--Rank of Chief Prosecutor and Chief Defense Counsel in Military Commissions Established to Try Individuals Detained at Guantanamo This section would require the chief defense counsel and chief prosecutor of any military commission established to try an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent who is detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to have the same rank. Section 1039--Report on Capability of Yemeni Government to Detain, Rehabilitate, and Prosecute Individuals Detained at Guantanamo who are Transferred to Yemen This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to jointly submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, a report on the capability of the Republic of Yemen to detain, rehabilitate, and prosecute individuals transferred there from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. This section would require such a report to be submitted not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1040--Report on Attachment of Rights to Individuals Detained at Guantanamo if Transferred to the United States This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to jointly submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, a report on whether detainees, if transferred to the United States from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, would become eligible for certain immigration-related relief or additional constitutional rights. Section 1040A--Summary of Information Relating to Individuals Detained at Guantanamo who Became Leaders of Foreign Terrorist Groups This section would require the Secretary of Defense to, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, make publicly available a summary of information relating to individuals who were formerly detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who have, since being transferred or released from such detention, become leaders or involved in the leadership structure of a foreign terrorist group. Subtitle E--Sensitive Military Operations Section 1041--Congressional Notification of Sensitive Military Operations This section would require the Secretary of Defense to promptly submit to the congressional defense committees notice in writing of any sensitive military operation following such operation. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act for providing such notice in a manner consistent with the national security of the United States and the protection of operational integrity. The term ``sensitive military operation'' would include lethal and capture operations conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces outside of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or any other authority except a declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization for the use of force other than the 2001 authorization. This section is not intended to create or alter reporting requirements of any other agency or department outside of the Department of Defense. Section 1042--Report on Process for Determining Targets of Lethal Operations This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act containing an explanation of the legal and policy considerations and approval processes used in determining whether an individual or group of individuals could be the target of a lethal operation or capture operation conducted by the Armed Forces of the United States outside the United States. Section 1043--Counterterrorism Operational Briefings This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide quarterly briefings to the congressional defense committees outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities. Each briefing would include: a global update on activity within each geographic combatant command; an overview of authorities and legal issues including limitations; an outline of interagency activities and initiatives; and any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate. Subtitle F--Nuclear Forces Section 1051--Prohibition on Elimination of the Nuclear Triad This section would prohibit any of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the Department of Defense from being obligated or expended to reduce, convert, or decommission any strategic delivery system of the United States if such reduction, conversion, or decommissioning would eliminate a leg of the nuclear triad. This section defines ``nuclear triad'' to be composed of: (1) land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles; (2) submarine-launched ballistic missiles and their associated ballistic missile submarines; and (3) nuclear- certified strategic bombers. Section 1052--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Reduction of Nuclear Forces This section would provide that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the Department of Defense or the National Nuclear Security Administration may be obligated or expended to carry out reductions to the nuclear forces of the United States required by the New START Treaty until the Secretary of Defense provides the plan required by section 1042(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) and the President certifies that any reductions to U.S. nuclear forces below the level required by the New START Treaty will be carried out only pursuant to a treaty or international agreement approved according to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution of the United States or an affirmative Act of Congress. This section would except those funds required to carry out inspections pursuant to the New START Treaty or reductions made to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and credibility of U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Section 1053--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Reduction or Consolidation of Dual-Capable Aircraft Based in Europe This section would provide that funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available may not be used to reduce or consolidate United States Dual-Capable Aircraft in Europe until 90 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that the Russian Federation has carried out similar actions; the Secretary has consulted with the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) about the proposed action with respect to United States Dual Capable Aircraft; and, there is a consensus among NATO member states in support of such action. Section 1054--Statement of Policy on Implementation of Any Agreement for Further Arms Reduction Below the Levels of the New START Treaty; Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of Strategic Delivery Systems This section would provide a Statement of Policy that reductions of United States nuclear forces that would rely on the verification regime of the New START Treaty can only be made pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President as set forth in the Treaty Clause of the Constitution of the United States or by Act of Congress. This section would also provide that reductions below 800 strategic delivery vehicles, as defined by the New START Treaty, may not be made unless the President certifies a treaty has entered into force or an international agreement made pursuant to an affirmative Act of Congress has entered into force and such agreement includes significant and proportional reductions in non-strategic nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation; the President certifies the Russian Federation is in compliance with its nuclear arms control obligations to the United States; and, the President has ``high confidence'' in intelligence community judgments on the nuclear forces of the People's Republic of China. Section 1055--Sense of Congress on Compliance with Nuclear Arms Control Agreements This section would state the sense of Congress that the President should consider not seeking to further limit or reduce the nuclear forces of the United States, including by negotiation, with a foreign country that remains in active noncompliance with existing nuclear arms control obligations, such as the Russian Federation. This section would also require the President, if he determines that a foreign country is not in compliance with its nuclear arms control obligations, to immediately consult with the Congress on the implications of such noncompliance; to submit to Congress a plan concerning the diplomatic strategy of the President to engage such foreign country to bring it into full compliance with such obligations; and, at the earliest date, to submit a report to Congress detailing whether adherence to such agreement remains in the national security interest of the United States and how the United States will redress the effect of such noncompliance. Section 1056--Retention of Capability to Redeploy Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that the Air Force is capable of deploying multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) to Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and any ground- based strategic deterrent follow-on to such missiles. This section would require the Secretary to ensure that the Air Force is capable of commencing such deployment not later than 270 days after the date on which the President determines such deployment is necessary. This section would also require the Nuclear Weapons Council to ensure that the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile contains a sufficient number of warheads that are capable of being deployed as MIRVs on Minuteman III and any ground-based strategic deterrent follow on to such missiles and that such deployment is capable of being commenced not later than 270 days after the date on which the President determines such deployment is necessary. The April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that, ``the United States will `deMIRV' all deployed ICBMs, so that each Minuteman III ICBM has only one nuclear warhead.'' The committee believes that the capability to ``reMIRV'' the Nation's ICBMs must be retained to mitigate the risk of a widespread technical failure in another leg of the nuclear triad or changes in the geopolitical environment that requires a more robust U.S. nuclear force posture. The committee's intent is to mandate retention of the capability to reMIRV ICBMs, but it does not intend to impose undue costs by an unreasonable timeframe for initiating ``reMIRVing.'' The committee is also aware that the commander, U.S. Strategic Command is assessing the requirements related to reMIRVing capabilities. The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2013, on the current and expected future requirements, costs, and timelines for beginning to reMIRV the Nation's ICBMs. Section 1057--Assessment of Nuclear Weapons Program of the People's Republic of China This section would amend section 1045(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) to extend the date of the required assessment until August 15, 2014. This section would also provide not more than 75 percent of the funds made available to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for travel may be obligated or expended until 30 days after the Secretary notifies the appropriate congressional committees that the assessment has begun. Section 1058--Cost Estimates for Nuclear Weapons This section would amend section 1043(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81) to include in the annual report required by such section a detailed estimate of the personnel costs associated with sustaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent and nuclear weapons stockpile of the United States. The report required by section 1043(a) of Public Law 112-81 would also be required to describe how and which locations were included with the cost estimate provided by the report. Section 1059--Report on New START Treaty This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff to jointly submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on whether the New START Treaty is in the national security interests of the United States. Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations Section 1061--Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to establish a Conflict Records Research Center to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile, to the United States. The committee recognizes that there are significant records available to the U.S. Government that could be useful for academic and policy research once immediate, tactical exploitation and dissemination has occurred. The committee believes that research and analysis of such captured records would increase the understanding of factors related to international relations, counterterrorism, conventional and unconventional warfare and, ultimately, enhance national security. The committee notes that such a center currently exists, but additional statutory authorization would allow the Center to be funded collectively by the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and other departments and agencies, rather than rely on discrete partner funding for each activity. This would also allow the Center to receive funding from other agencies, states, or other foreign and domestic entities. The committee also understands that there exists procedures by which the intelligence community works with this Center to ensure that the intelligence value of specific documents is exhausted before releasing them to the academic community, as well as ensure the protection of classified information, sources and methods, and personally identifiable information. The committee expects the Center to ensure such procedures continue to be implemented in a manner to protect such information and encourages the Department to continue working with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to refine and improve those procedures. Section 1062--Extension of Authority to Provide Military Transportation Services to Certain Other Agencies at the Department of Defense Reimbursement Rate This section would amend section 2642 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority to provide other Federal agencies transportation at the same rate the Department of Defense charges its own units for similar transportation. This section would also expand the authority to allow the use of the extra capacity on strategic transportation assets of the military for transportation provided in support of foreign military sales. Section 1063--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Modification of Force Structure of the Army This section would prevent the Department of the Army from spending any fiscal year 2014 funds to modify the force structure or basing strategy of the Army until the Secretary of the Army submits to Congress the report on force structure required by section 1066 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1943). Section 1064--Limitation on Use of Funds for Public-Private Cooperation Activities This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from obligating or expending any funds for public-private cooperation (PPC) activities undertaken by a combatant command until the Secretary of Defense submits the report on the conclusions of the Defense Business Board as directed in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The committee is aware that the Defense Business Board completed its report on the Department's public-private cooperation activities in July 2012. The Defense Business Board report found ``the single most frequently cited issue preventing the advancement of PPCs is the absence (actual or perceived) of legal authority.'' The committee is concerned about the lack of guidance for planning, supporting, or executing a PPC activity. The committee recognizes the value of PPC activities, particularly if they can effectively and efficiently leverage the resources of civil society and private entities to maximize Department of Defense activities. However, the committee believes it is important that the Department work with Congress to provide supporting doctrine, clear policy, and the proper authorities for the successful planning and execution of PPC activities. Subtitle H--Studies and Reports Section 1071--Oversight of Combat Support Agencies This section would require that assessments of combat support agencies undertaken pursuant to section 193(a) of title 10, United States Code, be submitted to the congressional defense committees. Section 1072--Inclusion in Annual Report of Description of Interagency Coordination Relating to Humanitarian Demining Technology This section would modify current reporting requirements for humanitarian demining as defined within section 407(d) of title 10, United States Code, to include interagency, research and development activities. Section 1073--Extension of Deadline for Comptroller General Report on Assignment of Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense as Advisors to Foreign Ministries of Defense This section would modify section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81), to extend the deadline for the required report of the Comptroller General of the United States from December 30, 2013, to December 30, 2014. The committee understands that the Department of Defense will not deploy its first global Ministry of Defense Advisor (MODA) until June 2013. Therefore, the committee believes additional time is needed for the Government Accountability Office to thoroughly review and report on the effectiveness of the MODA program. Section 1074--Repeal of Requirement for Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense Efficiencies This section would repeal section 1054 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81), relating to the implementation of the efficiencies undertaken in 2010 by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The committee notes that the Comptroller General of the United States recommended that Government Accountability Office resources might be better used to address other congressional priorities, as any future reports on 2011 and 2012 efficiencies implementation would provide little additive information to the data that has already been reported. Moreover, the committee believes that while there was merit in ensuring that the efficiencies identified in 2010 were actually generating the savings projected, the effort has been overtaken by events, including the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) and the implementation of sequestration starting in March 2013, which would make it difficult to ascertain whether savings were the result of the 2010 effort or some other cause. Section 1075--Matters for Inclusion in the Assessment of the 2013 Quadrennial Defense Review This section would require the National Defense Panel (NDP) established pursuant to subsection 118(f) of title 10, United States Code, to review a recommendation of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel (QDRIP), which conducted an assessment of the 2009 quadrennial defense review. The members of the QDRIP found that there was insufficient top down guidance on priorities, roles, and missions to allow the Department of Defense to effectively plan its missions, structure, or resources, or to develop integration and coordination with other departments and agencies. Appendix 4 of the report of the QDRIP recommended the establishment of an independent strategic review panel to review the national security strategic environment of the next 20 years and provide prioritized goal and risk assessment guidance for use by the U.S. Government. The committee believes the concerns of the QDRIP are well founded, but seeks the advice of the current NDP regarding this recommendation, in light of the release of several strategic planning documents since the conclusion of the QDRIP. In addition, this section would require the NDP to incorporate the assumptions and the findings of the Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR), directed by the Secretary of Defense during calendar year 2013, into its assessment of the Quadrennial Defense Review conducted during calendar year 2013. Furthermore, this section would require the Secretary to make information about both the 2013 quadrennial defense review and the SCMR available to the NDP in the conduct of its assessment. Finally, although the committee commends the effort underway in the SCMR, elsewhere in this report, the committee notes that such an effort may be duplicative of reviews mandated within title 10, United States Code. The committee encourages the Secretary to ensure that the SCMR, or any other self-initiated, short-term review, does not replace the thorough, long-term strategic assessment that should be conducted as part of the 2013 quadrennial defense review. Likewise, the committee believes the Secretary of Defense would benefit from the independent counsel of the NDP. However, the committee is disappointed that the Secretary has not appointed the remaining members of the NDP, as required, by February 1, 2013, and encourages the Secretary to appoint the remaining members of the NDP. Section 1076--Review and Assessment of United States Special Operations Forces and United States Special Operations Command This section would require the Secretary of Defense of the United States to review and assess the organization, missions, and authorities related to U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Special Operations Command and to provide a report to the congressional defense committees. Section 1077--Reports on Unmanned Aircraft Systems This section would require the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, on behalf of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Executive Committee, to jointly submit a report on unmanned aircraft system collaboration, demonstration, use cases and data sharing to the appropriate committees of Congress within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense, on behalf of the UAS Executive Committee, to submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress setting forth the resource requirements needed to meet the milestones for unmanned aircraft systems integration described in the 5-year roadmap under section 332(a)(5) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (Public Law 112-95). Section 1078--Online Availability of Reports Submitted to Congress This section would amend section 122a of title 10, United States Code, to require certain unclassified reports be made available on a publicly accessible website of the Department of Defense. Section 1079--Provision of Defense Planning Guidance and Contingency Operation Plan Information to Congress This section would amend section 113(g) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide to the congressional defense committees, not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and at the time of the budget submission by the President for each fiscal year thereafter, an annual report containing summaries of the guidance developed in accordance with the requirements of such section. Additionally, this section would provide a limitation on the obligation or expenditure of 25 percent of the funds, authorized to be appropriated by this Act for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, until 15 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits the first report required by this section. Subtitle I--Other Matters Section 1081--Technical and Clerical Amendments This section would make a number of technical and clerical amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law. Section 1082--Transportation of Supplies for the United States by Aircraft Operated by United States Air Carriers This section would modify section 2631a, chapter 157 of title 10, United States Code, to provide a preference for Civil Reserve Air Fleet aircraft for the transportation of Department of Defense supplies. This section would also require the Department of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees regarding outsize and oversize cargo. Finally, this section would amend chapter 401 of title 49, United States Code, to direct at least 50 percent of the gross tonnage of the equipment, materials, or commodities that are procured, contracted or subcontracted for by the U.S. Government, be transported by the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. An exception to the 50 percent requirement is provided for the use of military services of the United States or to respond to a humanitarian disaster. Additionally, a temporary waiver to the gross tonnage requirement is provided for the President, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, as appropriate, under certain conditions. Section 1083--Reduction in Costs to Report Critical Changes to Major Automated Information System Programs This section would give Department of Defense senior officials responsible for major automated information system programs the option of submitting to the congressional defense committees either a critical change report when required, or a streamlined notification when the official further concludes that the critical change occurred primarily due to congressional action, such as a reduction in program funding. Section 1084--Extension of Authority of Secretary of Transportation to Issue Non-Premium Aviation Insurance This section would amend section 44310 of title 49, United States Code, relating to the expiration of non-premium insurance under chapter 443 of that title to extend the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide insurance and reinsurance. Section 1085--Revision of Compensation of Members of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force This section would enable parity for compensation and ethics workday computations by decreasing and making optional the annual compensation rate for commissioners appointed to the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force that was established in subtitle G of title III of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). Section 1086--Protection of Tier One Task Critical Assets from Electromagnetic Pulse and High-Powered Microwave Systems This section would require the Secretary of Defense to certify to the congressional defense committees that defense critical assets designated as tier one task critical assets (TCAs) are protected from the adverse effects of electromagnetic pulses and high-powered microwave systems. For tier one TCAs not certified, the Department shall submit a plan on how to mitigate any risks to mission assurance, including any steps that may be needed for remediation. Section 1087--Strategy for Future Military Information Operations Capabilities This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a strategy for developing and sustaining military information operations capabilities for future contingencies. This strategy would be delivered to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2014. Section 1088--Compliance of Military Departments with Minimum Safe Staffing Standards This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all military departments comply with Department of Defense Fire and Emergency Services Program policy requirements on safe staffing. Section 1089--Determination and Disclosure of Transportation Costs Incurred by Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips Outside the United States This section would require the Secretary of Defense to disclose the transportation cost incurred by the Department of Defense for certain congressional travel. TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST National Research Council Report on Chemical Biological Defense Programs Capabilities The committee is aware that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Chemical Biological Defense (DASD (CBD)) requested a study from the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to identify the core capabilities in science and technology that the Chemical Biological Defense Program must sustain for the successful completion of Chemical Biological Defense Program's mission. The committee notes that the NRC report contained multiple findings and recommendations for the DASD (CBD). The committee also notes recent efforts by the DASD (CBD) to implement programmatic changes to address these recommendations and is encouraged by the improvements being made to the program. The committee encourages the DASD (CBD) to continue these efforts, in particular in regards to finding ways to more effectively utilize academic and industrial facilities that focus on developing capabilities in basic science and technology research, including those facilities related to bioforensics and biosecurity. Wage Grade Pay Parity at Joint Installations The committee continues to be concerned about pay parity for Department of Defense employees at joint bases and is disappointed that it has not received the required follow up from the Office of Personnel Management regarding the actions being taken to address the Federal Prevailing Wage System area within the same General Schedule (GS) locality pay area, as directed in the committee report (H. Rpt. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Since October 2010, the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee has consistently recommended consolidation of the Federal Wage System area within the same GS locality pay area; however, no further action has been taken. As previously noted, an example of pay disparity is Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Lakehurst, New Jersey, where the former McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix are in the Philadelphia cost-of-living area, and the former Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station is in the New York cost-of-living area. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to brief the committee not later than January 31, 2014, on actions planned or previously undertaken to correct the disparities between GS and Federal Wage System employees employed at joint military installations. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 1101--One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas This section would extend, for 1 year, the authority to waive the limitations on the amount of premium pay that may be paid to a Federal civilian employee who performs certain work in an overseas location that falls under the responsibility of U.S. Central Command, an overseas location that falls under the responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military operation, or in response to an emergency declared by the President. The payment may not exceed the annual rate of salary payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 3, United States Code. Section 1102--One-Year Extension of Discretionary Authority to Grant Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone This section would 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. Section 1103--Extension of Voluntary Reduction-In-Force Authority for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense This section would amend 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United States Code, to extend existing reduction in force authority from September 30, 2014, to September 30, 2015. Section 1104--Extension of Authority to Make Lump-Sum Severance Payments to Department of Defense Employees This section would extend by 4 years the authority for the Secretary of Defense or a service secretary to allow eligible Department of Defense employees scheduled to be involuntarily separated from Federal service to request a lump sum severance payment in lieu of biweekly payments. Section 1105--Revision to Amount of Financial Assistance under Department of Defense Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Education Program This section would remove the specific items for which financial assistance may be provided under the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) program. Such revisions would increase the flexibility that the Secretary of Defense would have in exercising discretion in administration of the SMART Program and will lessen the administrative burden in SMART Program operations. It would also allow the Secretary to make SMART Program stipend costs more consistent with other Federal scholarship-for-service educational programs. Section 1106--Extension of Program for Exchange of Information- Technology Personnel This section would authorize the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) for the Department of Defense until 2023. The committee is aware that ITEP was established in order to allow employees from the private sector or academia to temporarily work for the Department of Defense, as well as Department of Defense employees to work in the private sector. The committee believes that this kind of technical exchange of ideas is helpful in fostering the sharing of industry, federal cultures, and technical expertise in ways that will help modernize the Department of Defense by exposing its employees to best practices from the constantly changing and evolving informational technology sector, especially in key areas like cloud computing, cyber security, information technology (IT) consolidation, network services, IT project and data management, and enterprise architecture. The committee also believes industry would benefit from learning how the Department of Defense operates and how it can better serve the Department's needs. Section 1107--Defense Science Initiative for Personnel This section would establish new authorities for personnel hiring and management of Department of Defense Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories. TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS OVERVIEW The committee continues to conduct oversight of ongoing operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, and those steps the Department of Defense must take to be prepared for an increasingly uncertain global security environment. In particular, the committee focuses on three core areas in this title directly connected to current U.S. national security interests and emerging threats facing our country. First, the committee resources the mission to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while concurrently providing oversight of the transition in Afghanistan. Second, the committee strengthens its oversight of security force assistance and military-to-military interactions throughout the world, including authorizing resources to combat transnational terrorism. Third, the committee works to enhance its oversight, and the resourcing, of efforts to deal with emerging and evolving threats around the world, including Al Qaeda and associated forces, the nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the conflict in Syria, and military developments in the Asia-Pacific. The committee maintains its oversight of the campaign in Afghanistan, especially as the current mission concludes in 2014, as well as the capability and capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces who are moving into the lead for security in Afghanistan. The committee continues to resource key authorities to support the gains made in Afghanistan. However, the committee believes that a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan remains a critical element of the ongoing transition in Afghanistan. Therefore, the committee includes a provision that would prohibit the use of a significant portion of the funds for Afghanistan development and reconstruction until the Secretary of Defense certifies that a BSA is signed and includes critical protections for U.S. service members and U.S. interests. The committee also recognizes the strategic value of the United States' relationship with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as well as the challenges that accompany it, especially as the U.S. continues to rely upon Pakistan to target al Qaeda and associated forces operating within its borders and to transship supplies and equipment to and from Afghanistan. The committee also has taken several steps to resource key security assistance programs and activities which are critical to addressing other security challenges. The committee would expand the types of assistance that could be provided by the global train and equip authority originally provided by section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163). The committee will maintain close scrutiny of the use of this more flexible authority to ensure projects are executed consistent with congressional intent, other provisions of law, and policy. At the same time, the committee remains concerned about the progress of the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), originally authorized by section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The committee believes that if the Department of Defense and the Department of State cannot successfully establish GSCF with full operational capability, including planning, executing, and assessing GSCF activities, then it may be necessary to terminate or allow this authority to expire. The committee continues to applaud the success of the United States military in its global pursuit of al Qaeda. However, the committee remains concerned that al Qaeda and its affiliated and associated forces, though diminished in capacity in Afghanistan since 2001, would attack the United States if able and continue to threaten United States interests. Ungoverned spaces and the turmoil of the Arab Spring have enabled extremists to emerge in new countries within the greater Middle East, Africa, and throughout the world. Some of these groups have demonstrated the ability to conduct lethal attacks--akin to that which occurred in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Consequently, the committee believes that the Department of Defense must review its posture, alert status, and enabler support to deploy and respond to such attacks. The committee also supports the efforts of the Department of Defense to prepare and position itself in preparation for other threats. Iran continues to defy the international community and appears to be committed to developing nuclear weapons. The committee believes the development of such weapons would destabilize the region as well as threaten U.S. national security interests. Thus, the committee believes that it is critical that the United States military is appropriately postured, and agreements are in place, to defend the Arabian Gulf or take military action, if necessary. The committee continues its rigorous oversight of the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic. The committee would express a sense of Congress that all courses of action should be fully considered to enforce the President's stated red lines concerning the use of weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, the committee believes the Department of Defense needs to develop and refine various military options to respond to the conflict in Syria to inform the President's decision making and to keep Congress informed of the risks of all courses of action or inaction. Finally, the committee would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to train and equip military and civilian partners in the region of Syria for Weapons of Mass Destruction consequence management in Syria and the region. Finally, the committee has taken steps to ensure that the United States military is well positioned to address challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. The committee continues to monitor the modernization of the military of the People's Republic of China and their participation in regional, multinational exercises. The committee remains resolved that the rogue actions of the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are unacceptable and contrary to international peace and stability. In order to maintain a clear understanding of the potential military threat posed by North Korea, the committee would extend the reporting requirement regarding North Korea's military capabilities through 2017. The committee also recommends other forms of partnership that could have a force-multiplying effect in the region, such as a Japanese and South Korean information sharing agreement, in addition to advocating for sufficient investments in modernization to respond to the challenges in the Asia-Pacific. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Assistance to Civilians in Locations where U.S. Combat Operations Occur The committee notes military commander support for providing recognition and assistance to civilians who suffer harm as a result of U.S. combat operations. This assistance can help address harm before it creates anger and resentment, and it can reduce local opposition to the presence or activities of U.S. military personnel. The committee encourages military commanders to utilize the authorities available to provide assistance, as appropriate, to civilians who suffer harm in a combat zone. These include: (1) The Foreign Claims Act (FCA), which authorizes the payment of claims in connection with non-combat activities of U.S. military forces outside the United States. The FCA does not authorize compensation for losses resulting directly or indirectly from combat activities; (2) Solatia payments under section 2242 of title 10, United States Code, which authorizes payments to a victim or a victim's family to express sympathy for an injury or loss suffered when such payments are consistent with the local custom. These payments are not claim payments and are not based on any acceptance of legal liability by the United States. However, for these payments to be made, the relevant combatant commander must approve them for a particular theater; and (3) The Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP), which allows commanders in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to make ex gratia condolence or battle damage payments for harm caused by U.S. or coalition forces. Payments under CERP are provided as sympathy payments or to provide humanitarian relief to the victim or the victim's family. The committee notes that CERP will not endure as a tool for our commanders in future conflicts, as it is theater specific. These authorities have contributed greatly to promoting goodwill with the local populace in combat zones. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider adopting a standing policy so that commanders know how and when to make amends for the harm they may cause as a result of their lawful combat operations rather than create new ad hoc programs in each new theater. This policy should be included in the planning for future operations and should include, as appropriate, guidance on the authorities for, and utilization of, assistance to foreign civilians that are harmed incident to U.S. combat operations overseas. Congressional Notifications Relating To Status of Forces Agreements The committee believes that it must have a comprehensive understanding of forthcoming and on-going Status of Forces Agreement negotiations that the United States is preparing to enter into, or has entered into, with other countries. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees not later than 15 days after the date on which a Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and a foreign nation is signed, renewed, amended or otherwise revised, or terminated. However, this requirement does not ensure that the committee has a comprehensive understanding of forthcoming and on-going Status of Forces Agreement negotiations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, not later than September 30, 2013, to provide a briefing on the status of any Status of Forces Agreements that: (1) expire, which the United States intends to renew in the next calendar year; (2) the United States intends to enter into in the next calendar year; or (3) contain amendments that the Secretary of Defense deems as substantial that are likely to be negotiated in the next calendar year. The briefing should also include the status of on-going Status of Force Agreement negotiations. Governance in Afghanistan and the Afghan Presidential Elections The committee believes that credible governance and leadership that is perceived as legitimate by the Afghan people continues to be, and will remain, a critical condition for enduring, long-term stability of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the region. Therefore, the United States must help the Afghans achieve a democratic, transparent, and legitimate election for their next president in 2014, as such an election will be essential for Afghans to believe in the future of Afghanistan. Moreover, a credible election process and a legitimate election outcome will contribute to stability in the region, which is fundamental to the United States' enduring interests. Importance of International Security Assistance Force Retrograde for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Role of U.S. European Command The committee believes the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) retrograde from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is important to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its partners. The committee recognizes U.S. European Command's (USEUCOM) support role in coordinating with other U.S. combatant commands, military services, NATO allies, and NATO partners for the successful recovery of an estimated $28.0 billion in U.S. equipment and materiel, and billions more in allied and partner materiel, from the sustained operations in Afghanistan. Several important northern routes, which compliment the southern route through the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in U.S. Central Command's area, are within USEUCOM's area of operations. The committee recognizes the Northern Distribution Network provides multiple options to move tens of thousands of containers and vehicles and extends opportunities to work with key allies and partners in NATO. USEUCOM's assistance to, and collaboration with, these NATO allies and partners in recovering their assets while they, in turn, provide strategic access in their nations to conduct critical intermodal transportation access to move U.S. materiel home, provides a unique opportunity to enhance logistical interoperability and capabilities across the alliance. Missile Defense Discussions between the United States and the Russian Federation The committee notes that the Department of Defense and the Department of State have provided several briefings on U.S. Government discussions with the Russian Federation regarding missile defense. The committee commends both agencies for keeping it informed of the many developments in the U.S.-Russia dialogue on missile defense. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives by June 30, 2013, copies of all information, including presentations and documents, on U.S. missile defenses provided to the Russian Federation by the United States since January 1, 2007. This information should not be limited to ``publicly releasable'' information, as has been suggested by the Department of Defense. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to brief the aforementioned committees, every 6 months beginning June 30, 2013, and extending for 5 years, on discussions about missile defense between the United States and Russia; these briefings should include copies of any documents or presentations provided to Russia by the United States. Missile Defense Programs of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China In testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on April 18, 2013, the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency stated that, ``China is also developing a tiered ballistic missile defense system and has successfully tested the upper- tier capability on two occasions.'' The committee is also aware that the Russian Federation announced late last year that it was reactivating a missile defense system around Moscow as part of its defense modernization program and that this defense system could include nuclear armed anti-missile defense warhead. Press reports indicate that Russia plans to test this system in 2013, and that Russia is pursuing the development of other missile defense systems, including the S-500 system. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command and the Director of National Intelligence, to assess the capability, intent, and drivers of the missile defense development and deployment activity by Russia and China. The assessment should address the following: (1) Whether these missile defense deployments are intended to be used against U.S. nuclear and conventional capabilities and, if so, the attrition capable against U.S. nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities and the implications for U.S. deterrence and extended deterrence; (2) A statement of the deterrence objectives of the United States against Russia and China; and (3) The impact of U.S. missile defense plans on Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons acquisition plans, force posture, and policy; this information should be based on specific intelligence. The committee further directs the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees on the findings of the assessment by November 30, 2013. The report should be in unclassified form, with a classified annex if necessary. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Commitment to International Security Assistance Force Mission The committee recognizes the important contribution of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and partners to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. NATO assumed command of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan beginning in 2003. ISAF is NATO's first-ever operational deployment outside Europe. The committee applauds all 28 NATO member nations that have provided troops to ISAF, and believes the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan is a key provider of training and equipment to the Afghan National Security Forces. The committee also recognizes NATO allies and partners' commitment to Afghanistan after 2014. The committee believes that the ISAF mission has provided important lessons learned for the alliance's capabilities and capacity to conduct extended military operations. However, the committee remains concerned about the ongoing fiscal constraints to the military budgets of NATO allies. The committee encourages NATO allies to retain necessary military capabilities and capacity to conduct key missions and operations so that the combat and interoperability gains and lessons learned from ISAF are not lost once the combat mission ends. Semi-Annual Reporting on Russian Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapon Deployments The committee is aware that the Russian Federation is investing considerable resources to develop a new generation of long-range, sea-launched, land-attack cruise missiles capable of deploying nuclear or conventional warheads. Press reports indicate certain systems have ranges of as much as 2,500 kilometers. Press reports further indicate these systems may have already been deployed on attack and ballistic missile submarines of the Russian Federation. The committee is concerned that such cruise missiles may pose a threat to the United States, but are not limited under any arms control treaty. The committee believes there is little practical difference between so-called ``strategic'' and ``non- strategic'' nuclear weapons if used against the United States or its allies, yet one class is limited by treaty and the other class is completely unregulated. The committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency to provide unclassified semi-annual reports, with a classified annex if necessary, detailing the status of the development and deployment by the Russian Federation of nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems not subject to strategic arms control treaties. Such reports shall include status of deployment, numbers of deployed systems, expected employment doctrine, and status of training in the employment of such systems by the military forces of the Russian Federation. The committee directs the first such report to be provided not later than September 15, 2013, and not later than every 90 days thereafter until September 2016. Report and Briefings on Declassification of Certain Missile Defense Information The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to make available to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, a summary of the deliberations of the National Disclosure Policy Committee related to the release of classified, Official Use Only, or For Official Use Only information on U.S. missile defenses to the Russian Federation since at least January 1, 2007, by not later than November 30, 2013. Such summary should include, at a minimum, the reason for the proposed release, the outcome of the deliberation of the National Disclosure Policy Committee, and a risk assessment of the potential use or misuse of the information, including whether the information could be transferred to another party, if the National Disclosure Policy Committee determined to release information to Russia on U.S. missile defenses. The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, or a designee, to provide the aforementioned congressional committees with regular briefings, beginning November 30, 2013, and every 6 months thereafter until November 20, 2018, if there are additional disclosures, on additional releases and associated deliberations of the National Disclosure Policy Committee. Report on Operation Observant Compass The committee continues to support Operation Observant Compass, the U.S. Africa Command mission to provide advisory support to the Ugandan People's Defense Force's efforts to counter the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) and kill or apprehend Joseph Kony. However, the committee is concerned that this mission is open-ended in nature and that precise metrics have not been established to: (1) measure progress; and (2) determine if or when the mission has evolved toward a point of diminishing returns for the resources applied. This issue is particularly pressing since the requirements for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets remain high in other regions of the Continent of Africa, particularly in North and East Africa, due to Al Qaeda-affiliated and oriented terrorist groups. Yet, the requirements for ISR in these other locations are competing with the ``Counter-LRA'' campaign. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2013, that outlines, at a minimum, the following: (1) The specific goals of the ``Counter-LRA'' campaign; (2) The precise metrics used to measure progress in the campaign; and (3) The required steps that will be taken to transition the ``Counter-LRA'' campaign if it is determined that it is no longer necessary for the United States to support the current mission. Report on Terms and Agreements for Retrograde of U.S. Equipment and Supplies Through the Northern Distribution Network and Pakistan As the United States executes its retrograde of equipment and supplies out of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in preparation for the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission on December 31, 2014, and the United States' post-2014 residual military presence to conduct counterterrorism and security assistance operations, the committee lacks a detailed understanding of the terms, conditions, or caveats on the movement of U.S. equipment and supplies through the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 2, 2013, that includes the following: (1) A description of the terms and agreements, including any conditions or caveats, between the United States and the Government of Pakistan relating to the use of the Ground Lines of Communication (GLOC) through Pakistan in support of U.S. forces in the Afghanistan or for the retrograde of U.S. equipment out of Afghanistan; and (2) A description of the terms and agreements, including any conditions or caveats, between the United States and those countries associated with the NDN, for support of U.S. forces in Afghanistan or for the retrograde of U.S. equipment and supplies from Afghanistan through the NDN. Report on U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan Post-2014 The long-term U.S. strategy and approach to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan remains critical to U.S. national security goals and interests. Afghanistan possesses a distinctive geographic and ethno-linguistic landscape that has unique importance and resonance to both the jihadist, whose narrative and ideology are bolstered by Afghanistan's history, but also the regional actors, whose national interests have driven them toward maintaining their influence within Afghanistan. The U.S. strategy and long-term commitment to Afghanistan is critical to setting the dynamics and the assumptions of the regional actors and the terrorist threats in the region. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, by January 15, 2014, on the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan following the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission on December 31, 2014. Specifically, the report should include, but is not limited to, a discussion of: (1) The core U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the region; (2) The U.S. goals post-2014 and how the United States will achieve these goals; (3) The assumptions underpinning the strategy in Afghanistan and the length of the broader U.S. commitment to Afghanistan; (4) The military mission sets that are required to support the strategy; (5) The specific efforts, which are currently being conducted by the International Security and Assistance Force, that will be handed over to other U.S. Federal agencies or the Government of Afghanistan; and (6) The long-term plan for sustainment of the infrastructure and equipment for the Afghan National Security Forces. Report on U.S. Support to Advising Mission in Afghanistan In June 2011, the President announced that the U.S. mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan would be moving from combat to support by December 31, 2014. A central element of the transfer of lead security responsibility to Afghanistan is the development of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). To that end, the Department of Defense has used a variety of approaches to advise and assist the ANSF, such as the use of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps Security Force Assistance Advisor Teams and, more recently, the U.S. Army's Security Force Assistance Brigades. The future of these efforts depends on the post-2014 U.S. presence in Afghanistan. In February 2013, the President announced that U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan would be reduced by half to 34,000 U.S. troops by February 2014, with additional reductions to follow. At the same time, the President announced that beyond 2014, the U.S. commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of the commitment will focus on training and equipping Afghan forces as well as continued counterterrorism efforts. The committee understands that the specific nature of troop reductions and the mission of U.S. forces in Afghanistan will continue to be refined, but is concerned about the impact that these reductions may have on the Department's ability to support the remaining forces engaged in the advising mission. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by January 10, 2014, that reviews the Department of Defense's efforts to support the advising mission through December 2014, including: (1) To what extent the Department has identified the composition and missions of U.S. forces as it makes its troop reductions over the next year; (2) To what extent the Department has identified the support and security requirements for the remaining forces that will be engaged in the advising mission as force reductions occur; (3) What challenges, if any, the Department faces in providing support and security for the advising mission, and what steps has it taken to mitigate any challenges; and (4) To what extent the Department has defined the intended missions and related requirements for conducting the post-2014 training mission. Resource Requirements For and Posture of Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Teams and Commanders' In-Extremis Forces Stemming from the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, and the subsequent congressional oversight into the event, the committee is concerned that U.S. crisis response elements such as the Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Teams (FAST) and the Commanders' In-Extremis Force (CIF) may not be sufficiently postured, fully capable, or adequately resourced to respond to future crises in the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) areas of responsibility. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by September 2, 2013, that outlines the following: (1) The operational requirements for FAST and CIF in the USCENTCOM and USAFRICOM areas of responsibility; (2) The assumptions underpinning such requirements; (3) The intelligence threat picture and the risk assessment(s) that drive the planning for such requirements; (4) The gap(s), if any, between such requirements and current resourcing; and (5) The required posture of the enabling capabilities to support FAST and CIF within the USCENTCOM and USAFRICOM areas of responsibility. Resource Requirements to Support U.S. Policy Objectives in Syria The conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic continues to grow more lethal over time. The regime of President Bashar al-Assad is utilizing conventional and unconventional weapons, including chemical weapons, to defeat the opposition fighting against the regime. Events in Syria threaten the vital national security interests of the United States; however, the committee remains concerned that it does not have a comprehensive understanding of the resources required for certain courses of action that could shape the outcome of the conflict in Syria. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2013, that includes an assessment of the resources required for the following courses of actions: (1) Conducting limited air strikes against runways and other infrastructure that would prevent the regime of President Bashar al-Assad from deploying fixed wing aircraft or resupply via the air; (2) Establishing a no-fly zone over western Syria, enforced from the sea, that would prevent fixed or rotary wing aircraft from deploying or resupply via the air in that area; (3) Creating safe zones sufficient to allow the Syrian opposition to change the military balance on the ground; (4) Arming the Free Syrian Army with heavy military equipment to change the military balance on the ground; and (5) Providing additional aid to Jordan and other regional allies to assist in securing all or some of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile should it be required. Additionally, the assessment should identify where U.S. capabilities likely would be required for each of these courses of action and the effects that such courses of action would have in supporting a range of U.S. policy objectives in Syria and the region. RIMPAC 2014 Oversight The committee recognizes the importance of the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercises, one of the world's largest international maritime warfare exercises. The committee is aware that the People's Republic of China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has accepted an invitation by the United States to participate in the 2014 RIMPAC Exercise. Because of the unique nature of the exercise and the diverse group of participants, the committee deems it important to better comprehend PLAN participation in RIMPAC 2014. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief the congressional defense committees, no less than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the Act to the Committee on the Armed Services of the House, on the intended scope of PLAN participation in RIMPAC 2014 and the compliance of PLAN participation in RIPMAC 2014 with the 12 operational areas that were prohibited for mil-to-mil contact between the Department of Defense and PLA consistent with section 1201(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). Security Assistance and the Leahy Law The committee supports the intent of the Limitation on Assistance to Security Forces as set forth in section 2378d of title 22, United States Code, and section 8058 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74) collectively and commonly known as the ``Leahy Law.'' The committee notes that the Leahy Law, through its prohibition on security assistance to foreign forces that have been implicated in gross violations of human rights, promotes respect for human rights abroad. Further, the committee believes that the law can assist in professionalizing foreign military and security forces by linking the resumption of security assistance to action to correct human rights abuses. The committee notes that the Department of State conducts the human rights vetting process on behalf of the Department of Defense. In keeping with these laws, current policies require the vetting of unit commanders and their units when full-unit training is requested, and the vetting of individual security force members and their respective units when individual training is requested. While the committee supports the intent of the law and the coordination processes between the Department of Defense and the Department of State, the committee is concerned about the implementation of the law. Two recent committee hearings have highlighted a potential divergence between the intent of the law and its application to certain Department of Defense security assistance activities planned with full Chief of Mission concurrence. At those hearings, geographic combatant commanders testified before the committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities that the law, ``is at times stopping us perhaps more broadly than was the congressional intent,'' and that the law, ``has restricted us in a number of countries across the globe in our ability to train units that we think need to be trained, that the U.S. Ambassador in many cases thinks needs to be trained, that those nations think need to be trained, and yet because of some of the restrictions of the Leahy amendment, we are prohibited from doing that.'' The committee additionally notes a difference in language between section 2378d of title 22, United States Code, and section 8058 of Public Law 112-74 that may create a potential for misinterpretation. While section 2378d of title 22 notes that a prohibition shall remain in effect until ``the Government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice,'' the concomitant section 8058 of Public Law 112-74 makes no funds available, ``unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken.'' The committee believes that amended and clarifying language may be required to address any potential divergence between the intent of the law and its application. The committee expects to remain engaged on this issue and to work with the Departments of Defense and State, the relevant congressional defense committees, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate to ensure that Department of Defense needs and requirements are fully addressed, while continually complying with the intent of the Leahy Law. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the implementation of the Leahy Law with respect to Department of Defense security assistance programs. The briefing should outline current implementation policies, limitations and recommendations for improvements. Support for Military Information Sharing Agreement Between the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea and Related Initiatives The committee continues to monitor the rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region, as outlined in the defense strategic guidance released in January 2012. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee noted the importance of the Asia-Pacific region and the importance of the military having sufficient capability and capacity to effectively operate in the region. The committee seeks to ensure that investment and operation and maintenance accounts are adequately funded to conduct the rebalance, while meeting operational demands elsewhere around the globe. In addition, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to support initiatives that could increase cooperation and capabilities among allies. In particular, the committee notes that a military information sharing agreement has been a topic of negotiation between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of Korea. The committee commends this effort, and recognizes that improved coordination and communication among allies could conserve U.S. resources in responding to various theater security events and improve response outcomes. U.S. Extended Deterrence in Asia The committee notes the importance of on-going dialogues and assurances of a reliable and credible extended deterrent for U.S. allies in Asia, in the context of the nuclear weapons program and developing missile threat from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other security threats. The committee is aware of ongoing dialogues regarding extended deterrence between the United States and Japan and the United States and the Republic of Korea. The committee is also aware of goals to create a unified trilateral extended deterrence dialogue between the United States, Japan, and South Korea, and the committee supports this goal and encourages the Nation's allies to take steps to make its creation a reality. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to brief the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives by October 1, 2013, on bilateral and multilateral dialogues with U.S. allies in Asia, including Japan and South Korea, to maintain credible and reliable extended deterrence assurances. The briefing should include transmission to the aforementioned committees of the terms of reference agreed to between the United States and South Korea in its discussions concerning the counter-provocation plan and tailored extended deterrence through the Extended Deterrence Policy Committee, as well as a detailed discussion of the United States and South Korea agreements and disagreements through that entity. The briefing should also provide an update on U.S. efforts to create the trilateral extended deterrence dialogue between the United States, Japan, and South Korea. U.S. Military Engagement with Burma The committee encourages advancement of democracy and respect for human rights in Southeast Asia, including the development of democratic institutions within the Union of Burma. The committee believes that the United States can play a constructive role in supporting democratic progress in Burma, even as the United States continues to verify and monitor the extent of recent reforms. As the President noted following the first visit by a president of Burma to the United States in 50 years, ``his is a long journey and there is still much work to be done.'' As cornerstones of further reform, the committee supports efforts to enhance military professionalism, accountability, civilian control, and transparency in Burma, to improve governmental responsiveness to the people of Burma, and to reduce the risk of human rights violations. The committee intends to closely oversee any proposals regarding military-to- military engagements between the United States and Burma. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to thoroughly evaluate the potential for developing military-to- military relations between the United States and Burma and to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2013, on the findings and recommendations. U.S. Policy and Interagency Strategy in Iraq The committee remains concerned that the United States has not established a comprehensive policy that preserves U.S. interests in the Republic of Iraq. Moreover, the ambiguity and disjointedness associated with the U.S. policy and approach in Iraq has been evident through the bureaucratic infighting and the often disparate activities being conducted by the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I) and the U.S. Embassy. The implications of the United States' ambiguous policy and approach is that the Government of Iraq has hedged its interests and future towards regional actors at the expense of U.S. interests. The committee believes that the U.S. interagency should devise and implement a comprehensive policy and strategy in Iraq. Given the investment that the United States has made in Iraq and the importance of Iraq within an increasingly unstable region, it is imperative that the interagency conducts a fulsome policy analysis and applies the required resources to ensuring that Iraq sufficiently contemplates U.S. interests in Iraq and the region. Moreover, the Department of Defense must work in concert with the Department of State to both normalize OSC-I within the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and to devise a long-term, sustainable structure and approach for OSC-I that supports the U.S. Embassy efforts and broader U.S. policy. U.S. Strategic Partnership with Pakistan The committee continues to be concerned about the direction of the United States' strategic partnership with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan continues to allow the Haqqani Network to operate in Pakistan and attack U.S. troops in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda continues to enjoy sanctuary in, and operate from, the territory of Pakistan. Moreover, the Government of Pakistan has not allowed U.S. trainers to work with Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which has led the committee, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to not renew the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund in this Act. The committee does acknowledge that the Government of Pakistan has reversed its antagonistic course in some areas, including re-opening the Ground Lines of Communication, and has constructively worked with the International Security and Assistance Force on critical cross-border issues. However, more must be done in order for the committee to be confident that the Government of Pakistan is willing to engage in a comprehensive strategic partnership with the United States. The committee urges the Department of Defense, in conjunction with the Department of State, to continue to take prudent steps in fostering a constructive strategic relationship with the Government of Pakistan. Additionally, the committee cautions that it will remain skeptical of furthering pre-existing programs, and creating new programs, to engage with the military of the Government of Pakistan until there are meaningful steps by the Government of Pakistan to fully support U.S. goals and interests in the region. U.S. Security Sector Assistance The committee commends the new Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on Security Sector Assistance as a positive step to establish an overarching strategy and implementation plan for U.S. Government security sector assistance (SSA). SSA is necessary to help partner nations build a sustainable capacity to address common defense and security threats. Furthermore, the committee believes that this interagency collaboration is an important step in recognizing that many national security functions reside across a broad spectrum of U.S. Government activity. The committee recommends that the interagency, in executing the effort outlined in the PPD, prioritize security sector assistance and also review current authorities to identify potential ineffective, duplicative, and/or overlapping authorities. Additionally, the committee recognizes the essential role stability and good governance play in regional security development and therefore expects that an annual review of the impact of this assistance on human rights standards, rule of law, and good governance for each recipient country will be included as part of the implementation plan for this PPD. While the committee recognizes the implementation plan is still in development, the committee urges the executive branch to keep the appropriate congressional committees informed on the progress of the implementation plan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by October 1, 2013, on the status of the implementation plan. Use of Missile Defense Declassification Authority by Director, Missile Defense Agency The committee is aware that, pursuant to the Ballistic Missile Defense System Security Classification Guide, the Director, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is given the authority by the Secretary of Defense to exercise Original Classification Authority and Foreign Disclosure Authority to establish security classification policy and guidance over MDA funded technology, development, and acquisition programs. This authority is delegated to the Director because of his expertise of MDA technology and the risks of its disclosure. The committee continues to be concerned about the potential risks of disclosure of sensitive missile defense technologies to foreign parties. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to provide a report 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 by August 16, 2013, that lists each example of a request for an exception made by the Director, or submitted to the Director, for use of the Foreign Disclosure Authority related to the Russian Federation covering the period between January 1, 2007 through April 1, 2013. The report should include a brief summary of each example, including the Russian entity receiving the information and the specific information or MDA technology involved. The committee directs the Director to provide an interim briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by July 15, 2013, regarding the expected scale of this report. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Assistance and Training Section 1201--Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating to Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces This section would modify subsection 1206(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), as most recently amended by section 1206 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), regarding the program to build the capacity of foreign military forces. This section would broaden the authority to include support of the theater security priorities of a geographic combatant commander. The committee expects that the additional activities under this new authority will be directly tied to a combatant command's Theater Security Cooperation Plan and should be narrowly defined to key theater security priorities that are directly linked to U.S. national security interests. The committee will closely consider the strength of this linkage during the congressional notification process. This section would also authorize the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to build the capacity of a foreign country's security forces to conduct counterterrorism operations. The committee recognizes that in certain countries, the counterterrorism unit is not located with the Ministry of Defense. However, the committee expects this authority to be used sparingly when it is clear that these forces are the most suitable for the task. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit as part of the budget justification materials, beginning with the fiscal year 2016 budget submission, a detailed description of how the Department of Defense intends to spend not less than 50 percent of the funds authorized for that fiscal year. This description may take the form of the current congressional notification for individual projects. The committee believes that this would provide improved congressional oversight and public notice of the combatant command proposed programs, insight into how the programs support the combatant commanders' theater security plans, and balance both predictability for the combatant commands and flexibility for the Secretary of Defense to respond to emerging requirements. This section would raise the limit of funds available from operation and maintenance accounts from $350.0 million per fiscal year to $425.0 million per fiscal year, and extend the termination of the program from September 30, 2014, to September 30, 2016. The committee believes the expansion of this authority meets the current and emerging needs of the combatant commanders. As stated in the committee report (H. Rept. 112- 479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee remains ``concerned that the proliferation of similar, overlapping and/or competing building partner capacity authorities creates unnecessary confusion and friction.'' Therefore, this section would also repeal section 1203 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). Section 1202--Three-Year Extension of Authorization for Non- Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities This section would authorize the Department of Defense a 3- year extension to continue to develop, manage, and execute a Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery personnel recovery program for isolated Department of Defense, U.S. Government, and other designated personnel supporting U.S. national interests globally. This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to use funds through fiscal year 2017. Section 1203--Global Security Contingency Fund This section would modify the notification requirements of the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), including the required process and guidance notification. The committee is aware of a legislative proposal submitted by the Department of Defense requesting that ``professional guidance and advice'' be added as an authorized type of assistance. The committee believes that ``professional guidance and advice'' are logical supporting components of the provision of equipment, supplies, and training, and therefore covered under current authorized types of assistance. The committee remains concerned about the progress of the GSCF, including the development of what appears to be a burdensome bureaucratic process. The committee notes the GSCF authority expires on September 30, 2015. The committee believes that if the Department of Defense and the Department of State cannot successfully establish GSCF with full operational capability, including planning, executing, and assessing GSCF activities, then it may be necessary to terminate or allow this authority to expire. Section 1204--Codification of National Guard State Partnership Program This section would codify the National Guard State Partnership Program in chapter 1 of title 32, United States Code. Section 1205--Authority to Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Certain Foreign Countries to Respond to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria and the Region This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide assistance to the military and civilian response organizations of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the State of Kuwait, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Iraq, the Republic of Turkey, and other countries in the region of the Syrian Arab Republic in order for such countries to respond effectively to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction in Syria and the region. The Secretary may use up to $4.0 million of the funds made available to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance to carry out this program. This section would also require, not later than 60 days after the date on which this authority is first exercised and annually thereafter through December 31, 2015, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit: (1) A detailed description by country of assistance provided. (2) An overview of how such assistance fits into, and is coordinated with, other United States efforts to build the capability and capacity of countries in the region of Syria to counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Syria and the region. (3) A listing of equipment and supplies provided to countries in the region of Syria. (4) Any other matters the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State determine appropriate. The authority provided by this section would expire on September 30, 2015. Section 1206--One-Year Extension of Authority to Support Foreign Forces Participating in Operations to Disarm the Lord's Resistance Army This section would modify section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81) to extend the Counter Lord's Resistance Army authority and funding, which supports Operation Observant Compass, for 1 year through the end of fiscal year 2014. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on metrics and objectives associated with Operation Observant Compass, and recommends $50.0 million in intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR) support for the operation. In addition, the committee includes a provision in title XV of this Act that would limit the obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be appropriated for the ISR support for Operation Observant Compass until the committee receives the specified report. Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Section 1211--One-Year Extension and Modification of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military Operations This section would amend section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110- 181), as most recently amended by section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239), by extending the authority for reimbursement of coalition nations for support provided to the United States for military operations through fiscal year 2014, and making certain technical amendments. This section would limit the amounts available for fiscal year 2014 to $1.5 billion. Additionally, this section would prohibit the reimbursement of support provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until such time as the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that Pakistan is maintaining security and is not, through its actions or inaction at any level of government, limiting or otherwise restricting the movement of U.S. equipment and supplies along the Ground Lines of Communication through Pakistan, and that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps to (1) support counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and other militant groups such as the Haqqani Network and the Quetta Shura Taliban; (2) disrupt the conduct of cross- border attacks against U.S., coalition, and Afghan security forces; (3) counter the threat of improvised explosive device networks; and (4) conduct cross-border coordination and communication with Afghan security forces and U.S. Armed Forces. Section 1212--One-Year Extension of Authority to Use Funds for Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan This section would amend section 1216 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), as most recently amended by section 1218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), by extending the authority to use funds for reintegration activities in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and authorizing $25.0 million for fiscal year 2014. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this section can be obligated or expended until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies to the congressional defense committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that the United States and the Government of Afghanistan have signed a bilateral security agreement and that such agreement includes certain specified requirements. Section 1213--Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan This section would amend section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81), as amended by section 1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), by extending for 1 year the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and authorizing $60.0 million for fiscal year 2014. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of $45.0 million of CERP funding until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies to the congressional defense committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that the United States and the Government of Afghanistan have signed a bilateral security agreement and that such agreement includes certain specified requirements. Section 1214--Extension of Authority to Support Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq This section would amend section 1215 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81), as amended by section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), by specifying that the Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of the Secretary of State, may use funds provided to the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I) to conduct non-operational training of Iraqi Ministry of Defense personnel in an institutional environment to address capability gaps and integrate certain processes within the Iraqi security forces. This section would preclude training of Counter Terrorism Service personnel. This section would also limit the total funding authorized for operations and activities for OSC-I to $209.0 million in fiscal year 2014. Section 1215--One-Year Extension and Modification of Authority for Program to Develop and Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan This section would amend subsection (f) of section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), as most recently amended by section 1219 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), by extending the authority for a program to develop and carry out infrastructure projects in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for 1 year and authorizing $279.0 million for fiscal year 2014. This section also includes an additional element which would require an assessment of the capability of the Afghan National Security Forces to provide security for projects funded by this authority after January 1, 2015. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this section can be obligated or expended until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies to the congressional defense committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that the United States and the Government of Afghanistan have signed a bilateral security agreement and that such agreement includes certain specified requirements. Section 1216--Special Immigrant Visas for Certain Iraqi and Afghan Allies This section would amend section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) by requiring that a principal alien seeking special immigrant status must apply for approval from the appropriate Chief of Mission, or the designee of the appropriate Chief of Mission, by not later than September 30, 2015. Also, the total number of principal aliens who may be provided special immigrant status under this section may not exceed 435 for each of fiscal years 2014-18. Additionally, this section would amend section 1244(a)(1) of the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 (8 U.S.C. 1157 note) by authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security, or, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide an alien described in section 1244(b) with the status of a special immigrant under section 101(a)(27) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)), if the alien or an agent acting on behalf of the alien submits a petition for classification under section 203(b)(4) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4)) on or before the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1217--Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense Assistance to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 100 Percent of All Taxes Assessed By Afghanistan to Extent Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed By Afghanistan This section would require that an amount equivalent to 100 percent of the total taxes assessed during fiscal year 2013 by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on all Department of Defense assistance must be withheld by the Secretary of Defense for such assistance for fiscal year 2014 to the extent that the Secretary of Defense certifies and reports in writing to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that such taxes have not been reimbursed by the Government of Afghanistan to the Department of Defense or the grantee, contractor, or subcontractor that are affected. The Secretary of Defense would be able to waive this requirement if the Secretary determines that such waiver is necessary to achieve U.S. goals in Afghanistan. Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the total taxes assessed during fiscal year 2013 by the Government of Afghanistan on all Department of Defense assistance. Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Afghanistan Post 2014 Section 1221--Modification of Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan This section would amend the report required by section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently amended by section 1214 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), to require the Secretary of Defense, in all future reports, to provide information on the redeployment of U.S. personnel, redeployment of U.S. military vehicles and equipment, and the closure of U.S. bases in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Additionally, this section would require a summary of tasks and functions conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces or the Department of Defense that have been transferred to other U.S. Government departments and agencies, Afghan Government ministries and agencies, other foreign governments, or nongovernmental organizations; or tasks that have been discontinued during the reporting period. The summary shall include a discussion of the formal and informal arrangements and working groups that have been established to coordinate and execute the transfer of such tasks and functions. Section 1222--Sense of Congress on United States Military Support in Afghanistan This section would express the sense of Congress on U.S. military support in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including that a stable and secure Afghanistan is in the long- term interests of the United States; the United States should continue to assist the Afghan National Security Forces; the United States should continue to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda following the duration of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's mission on December 31, 2014; the United States should provide assistance for the operational requirements of the Afghan Security Forces to maintain the security of Afghanistan; the transition to counterterrorism and advise and assist missions should occur consistent with agreements between the United States, Afghanistan, and international partners; and the bilateral security agreement between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan is critical to the long-term stability of Afghanistan as well as U.S. interests. Additionally, this section would express the sense of Congress that the President, consistent with U.S. interests, should: (1) Publicly support a residual U.S. military presence in Afghanistan; (2) Publicly define the mission sets and support the United States will provide to the Afghan National Security Forces; and (3) Publicly support sufficient funding for the Afghan National Security Forces. Section 1223--Defense Intelligence Plan This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees a Department of Defense plan regarding covered defense intelligence assets in relation to the drawdown of U.S. forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This section would require the plan to include: (1) A description of the covered defense intelligence assets; (2) A description of any such assets to remain in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014; (3) A description of any such assets that will be, or have been, reallocated to other locations outside of the United States; (4) The defense intelligence priorities that will be, or have been, addressed with the reallocation of such assets; (5) The necessary logistics, operations, and maintenance plans to operate in the locations where such assets, including personnel, basing, and any host country agreements, will be, or have been, reallocated; and (6) A description of any such assets that will be, or have been, returned to the United States. Further discussion is contained in the classified annex accompanying this report. Section 1224--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain Authorities for Afghanistan This section would require that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Authority for the Program to Develop and Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan and the Authority to Use Funds for Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan be obligated or expended until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, transmits to the specified committees a certification regarding the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between the United States and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Additionally, this section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of $45.0 million of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Commander's Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan and $2.6 billion of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, respectively, until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, transmits to the specified committees the certification regarding the BSA between the United States and Afghanistan. This section would require that such certification include a confirmation that the United States and Afghanistan have signed a BSA that: (1) Protects the Department of Defense, its military and civilian personnel, and contractors from liability to pay any tax, or similar charge, associated with efforts to carry out missions in the territory of Afghanistan that have been agreed to by both the Government of the United States and the Government of Afghanistan; (2) Ensures exclusive jurisdiction for the United States over U.S. Armed Forces located in Afghanistan; (3) Ensures that there is no infringement on the right of self-defense of the U.S. military mission or U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan; (4) Ensures that the U.S. military in Afghanistan is permitted to take the efforts deemed necessary to protect other U.S. Government offices and personnel in Afghanistan as may be required; (5) Ensures that the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan has sufficient access to bases and basing rights as may be necessary to carry out the activities in Afghanistan that the President has assigned to the military; and (6) Ensures that the United States has the freedom of movement to carry out those military missions as may be required to continue the effort to defeat Al Qaeda and its associated forces. The committee reiterates its concerns about illegal taxation of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan, as reflected in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and notes that U.S. law forbids the taxing of U.S. Government assistance. Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Iran Section 1231--Report on United States Military Partnership with Gulf Cooperation Council Countries This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the United States military partnership with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Section 1232--Additional Elements in Annual Report on Military Power of Iran This section would amend section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111- 84), as amended by section 1231 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), by requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide information on the global Iranian Threat Network and how the Iranian Threat Network reinforces the grand strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a list of gaps in intelligence and to prioritize those gaps by operational need. Section 1233--Sense of Congress on the Defense of the Arabian Gulf This section would express the sense of Congress with respect to the United States' operational posture and capacity to defend the Arabian Gulf, including the risk of maintaining only 1 aircraft carrier battle group in the Arabian Gulf to deter the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the limitations on maintaining a 2 aircraft carrier battle group presence in the Arabian Gulf, stemming in part from not constructing and sustaining a fleet of at least 11 aircraft carriers. Additionally, this section would express the sense of Congress that the United States should finalize bilateral security agreements with key Gulf Cooperation Council countries that support the Defense of the Arabian Gulf requirements at the earliest possible date. Subtitle E--Reports and Other Matters Section 1241--Report on Posture and Readiness of United States Armed Forces to Respond to Future Terrorist Attacks in Africa and the Middle East This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the terrorist attack that occurred in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, and the alert status, readiness, and posture of the U.S. Armed Forces to respond to future terrorist attacks in Africa and the Middle East. This section also would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Relations, that assesses the terrorist groups that threaten the United States in Africa and a description of the readiness, posture, and alert status of relevant U.S. Armed Forces in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the United States; and any changes implemented since the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to include in this report a description of any new or modified requirements of the Department of State for U.S. Marine Security Guard Detachments, any other Department of Defense assets to provide enhanced security at Department of State facilities, and an explanation of how any new requirements for U.S. Marine Security Detachments or other Department of Defense assets affect the capacity of the U.S. Armed Forces to fulfill Department of Defense operational requirements. Section 1242--Role of the Government of Egypt to United States National Security This section would express the sense of Congress on the role of the Government of Egypt to U.S. national security. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, that contains a comprehensive plan for U.S. military assistance and cooperation with the Government of Egypt. Section 1243--Sense of Congress on Military Developments on the Korean Peninsula This section would express certain findings and the sense of the Congress regarding the military developments on the Korean peninsula. Section 1244--Sense of Congress on Defense Cooperation with Georgia This section would express the sense of Congress that the United States should enhance its defense cooperation efforts with the country of Georgia and support the efforts of the Government of Georgia to provide for the defense of its government, people, and sovereign territory. Section 1245--Limitation on Establishment of Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers This section would limit the expenditure of funds for the establishment of ``Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers'' or similar regional entities. This section would also require a joint report by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to be submitted 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. Section 1246--Additional Reports on Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea This section would amend the report on Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as originally required by section 1236 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to require the Secretary of Defense to submit the report every 2 years beginning on November 1, 2013, through November 1, 2017. The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit an update to the report if, in the Secretary of Defense's estimation, interim events or developments occurring during the 2-year period between reports require an update. Section 1247--Amendments to Annual Report Under Arms Control and Disarmament Act This section would amend the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (22 U.S.C. 2593a) to add as recipients of the annual report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, also known as the ``Compliance Report'', the following congressional committees: the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the congressional intelligence committees, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. This section would also add a requirement that if the annual report is not provided by the statutory deadline of April 15, the Administration shall provide a briefing on the draft report to the appropriate committees not later than May 15 of each year. Section 1248--Limitation On Funds to Provide the Russian Federation with Access to Certain Missile Defense Technology This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for the Department of Defense to provide the Russian Federation with access to hit-to-kill missile defense technology of the United States or its telemetry data. The committee is aware that in a December 13, 2011 letter, Assistant to the President Rob Nabors wrote that, ``hit-to-kill technology and interceptor telemetry will under no circumstances be provided to Russia.'' Further Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Brad Roberts testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces during its March 6, 2012, hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense that, ``hit-to-kill is our technology, and it serves our interests well to keep it in our hands.'' Section 1249--Reports On Actions to Reduce Support of Ballistic Missile Programs of China, Syria, Iran, and North Korea This section would require the President to encourage the Russian Federation to disclose past support by it or Russian entities for the ballistic missile programs of certain states. This section would also require the President to submit a semi- annual report to the congressional defense committees on any disclosure by the Government of the Russian Federation. This section would require an initial report to cover disclosures made for the period preceding the date of enactment by 10 years. This section would also require the development of a plan by the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to seek and secure the cooperation of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China to verifiably reduce the spread of technology and expertise that supports the ballistic missile programs of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Section 1250--Congressional Notifications Relating to Status of Forces Agreements This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to notify the congressional defense committees, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, not later than 15 days after the date on which a Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and a foreign nation is signed, renewed, amended or otherwise revised, or terminated. This section would apply to such agreements that are signed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, not later than September 30, 2013, to provide a briefing on the status of any forthcoming or on-going Status of Forces Agreement negotiations. Section 1251--Sense of Congress on the Conflict in Syria This section would set forth certain findings and express the sense of Congress on the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, including that President Obama should have a comprehensive policy and should ensure robust contingency planning to secure United States' interests in Syria; the President of the United States should fully consider all courses of action to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power; the conflict in Syria threatens the vital national security interests of Israel, which should be sufficiently weighed by the President when considering policy approaches towards the conflict in Syria; the President of the United States should fully consider all courses of action to reinforce his stated ``redline'' regarding the use of chemical weapons; the United States should continue to conduct rigorous planning and operational preparation to secure the chemical stockpiles and associated weapons in Syria; the United States should continue to support the opposition as necessary; and the United States should have a policy that supports the stability of countries in the region of Syria. Section 1252--Revision of Statutory References to Former NATO Support Organizations and Related NATO Agreements This section would revise two statutes to reflect the new North Atlantic Treaty Organization organizational structure, which became effective in July 2012. Section 1253--Limitation on Funds to Implement Executive Agreements Relating to United States Missile Defense Capabilities This section includes a Statement of Policy that executive agreements related to U.S. missile defense capabilities have no legally binding effect if not made pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution of the United States or an affirmative Act of Congress. This section would also limit funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2014 or any fiscal year thereafter to implement an executive agreement with respect to U.S. missile defense capabilities or to implement Guidance for Employment of Force relating to such agreements. This section includes a statutory Rule of Construction that the limitation does not apply to executive agreements made with a U.S. ally or a state with which the U.S. maintains a security guarantee. Section 1254--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Threat Reduction Engagement Activities and United States Contributions to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organization This section would provide that none of the funds made available for fiscal year 2014 for Threat Reduction Engagement activities may be obligated or expended until the President certifies to Congress that no state party to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has undertaken nuclear weapons test activities in fiscal year 2013 that are inconsistent with United States interpretations regarding obligations under such Treaty. This section would also provide that none of the funds made available for fiscal year 2014 for contributions to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization may be used for lobbying or advocacy in the United States relating to the CTBT. Section 1255--Sense of Congress on Military-to-Military Cooperation Between the United States and Burma This section would express the sense of Congress regarding military-to-military cooperation between the United States and the Union of Burma. Section 1256--Sense of Congress on the Stationing of United States Forces in Europe This section would express certain findings and the sense of the Congress regarding the stationing of United States Forces in Europe. Section 1257--Sense of Congress on Military Capabilities of the People's Republic of China This section would express certain findings and the sense of the Congress regarding the military developments of the People's Republic of China. Section 1258--Rule of Construction This section would set forth that nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against the Syrian Arab Republic. TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION OVERVIEW The budget request for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $528.5 million for fiscal year 2014, representing an increase of $9.3 million from the amount requested and authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Following the initial submission of the budget request, the Department of Defense proposed to alter the allocation of funding within the CTR program, requesting that the following amounts be authorized to be appropriated for the CTR program: $5.7 million for Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination, $13.0 million for Chemical Weapons Destruction, $32.8 million for Global Nuclear Security, $293.1 million for Cooperative Biological Engagement, $149.3 million for Proliferation Prevention, $6.4 million for Threat Reduction Engagement, and $28.2 million for Other Assessments/ Administrative support. The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR program and believes that the program is important to United States national security. In past years, the committee has expressed concern that a lack of effective policy guidance and leadership, as well as programmatic and funding constraints, has sometimes limited progress of the CTR program. The committee notes, however, that the CTR program has made significant achievements, and that much work remains to be done as new threats emerge. Congress has addressed these concerns by: repealing limitations on the use of CTR funds; expanding CTR authority outside the former Soviet Union; increasing CTR funding; including funding for new CTR initiatives; requiring reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new CTR initiatives and metrics; requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense regarding efforts to complete the chemical weapons destruction project in the Russian Federation at Schuch'ye; requiring increased reporting from the Secretary of Defense on CTR defense and military contacts; providing CTR programs with authority for urgent threat reduction activities; authorizing the CTR program to accept international contributions; and ensuring that the CTR program addresses threats involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise. The committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP) now encompasses two-thirds of the CTR budget request. The committee reaffirms its view, stated in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and reaffirmed in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, that biological threat reduction and engagement `should be guided by a comprehensive long-term interagency engagement and coordination; rigorous Department management and oversight; coordination and integration with other Department programs and activities; and concrete metrics for measuring progress.' The committee further reaffirms its view that the CTR program as a whole should `maintain a strong focus' on the full range of threat reduction challenges. Lastly, the committee continues to believe that concrete metrics remain important for measuring the impact and effectiveness of CBEP activities. The committee welcomes efforts by the Department of Defense to actively consult with the committee and keep the committee fully informed of efforts and developments in these areas. The committee authorizes $528.5 million, the amount of the budget request. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Focus The committee recognizes that one of the Department of Defense's primary missions is to counter weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The committee believes the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program has been one of the Department's most effective activities in strengthening non-proliferation regimes and building partner capacity to counter WMD and increase U.S. and international security. However, the committee recognizes the threat of WMD has shifted since the CTR program was initially established more than 20 years ago with the purpose of securing and dismantling WMD and the supporting infrastructure in the former Soviet Union states. The committee believes the CTR program must be flexible and adaptable to the evolving nature, location, and threat of WMD. The changing security situation in the Middle East and North Africa requires the Department to shift its resources and attention to the WMD threat in these regions, including building partner capacity with regional allies and partners to prevent the spread of WMD to terrorist regimes and organizations. The committee believes that in an era of fiscal austerity resources must be directed toward the most significant threats in order to maximize the Department's ability to counter the proliferation of WMD. Cooperative Biological Engagement Program The committee notes the growth of the Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP) of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program's fiscal year 2014 President's budget request. The committee finds that the CBEP budget has grown as a percentage of the CTR budget from 40 percent in fiscal year 2011 to more than 60 percent of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The committee is concerned about the infrastructure projects the CBEP is funding, with approximately $180.0 million of the requested budget projected to be spent on laboratory construction and renovation in the former Soviet Union republics. The committee is aware of the program's plan to phase out funding for these infrastructure projects in the next few years as these projects are completed. The committee will continue to exercise its oversight of these projects to ensure the CBEP is properly positioned to meet the evolving biological threats, both in the region and around the world. While the committee is supportive of the CBEP's mission to build the capabilities and capacities of key partners to rapidly detect, investigate, report, and secure dangerous biological pathogens, the committee is concerned about the CBEP's current activities in building and renovating laboratories. The committee believes the current fiscal environment requires the Department of Defense to focus on more efficient and effective means of building partnership capacities to counter biological weapons of mass destruction. U.S.-Russia Umbrella Agreement Negotiations The committee is aware the current U.S.-Russia Umbrella Agreement expires in June 2013, and that there are ongoing negotiations for a new agreement to continue the bilateral work with the Russian Federation to secure and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The committee recognizes the significant progress made in securing nuclear weapons since the establishment of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program more than 20 years ago. The committee also believes a new agreement should reflect the progress made, including consideration of an equal partnership and burden-sharing arrangement, and opportunities for further cooperation to strengthen security. However, the committee believes privileges and immunities, and liability protections, must be required components of any new agreement. The committee encourages the Department of State and the Department of Defense to continue to inform the appropriate congressional committees of the progress of negotiations. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs and Funds This section would define the programs and funds that are Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and specify that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. Section 1302--Funding Allocations This section would allocate specific amounts for each program under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program from within the overall $528.5 million that the committee would authorize for the CTR program. The allocation under this section reflects the amount of the budget request for fiscal year 2014. This section would also require notifications to Congress 15 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2014 funds for purposes other than those specifically authorized. In addition, this section would provide limited authority to obligate amounts for a program element under the CTR program in excess of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose. Section 1303--Extension for Use of Contributions to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program This section would extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to accept contributions from any person, including any foreign government or entity, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, through December 30, 2018. TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Working Capital Fund Cash Balance Concerns The committee remains concerned about the failure of the Department of Defense to address the levels of cash necessary within working capital funds to maintain both solvency and an adequate reserve. Further, the committee notes that the Department has been unable to hold rates at a single level throughout a fiscal year without reprogramming funds. While the lower level of the working capital fund cash corpus (7 days) might be sufficient to satisfy fiscal liability concerns, the artificially constrained size of the cash corpus (from 7 to 10 days) cannot absorb the market fluctuations associated with commodities related to fuel and transportation. As such, managers of the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) and the Transportation Working Capital Fund (TWCF) continue to struggle to maintain a steady rate throughout a single fiscal year. Since 2005, the standard composite fuel price charged to Department customers has changed at least once every year during the year of execution, with up to five price changes in 2009. These continuously changing prices destabilize budget execution throughout the Department, most notably within the operation and maintenance accounts. The working capital funds were created and designed to absorb market fluctuations and maintain stability in appropriated accounts, but the committee observes that has not been the case. Therefore, for working capital funds subject to significant market fluctuations, namely the DWCF and the TWCF, the committee recommends expanding the cash corpus metric required from 7-10 days to 7-20 days. This new metric should be the basis for the development of the fiscal year 2015 budget request for these working capital funds. The committee believes that this adjustment, along with revised budget practices related to fuel rate determination addressed elsewhere in this report, should improve the Department's ability to stabilize working capital fund rates during the year of execution. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Military Programs Section 1401--Working Capital Funds This section would authorize appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund This section would authorize appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense- Wide This section would authorize appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1405--Defense Inspector General This section would authorize appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General at the level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1406--Defense Health Program This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile Section 1411--Use of National Defense Stockpile for the Conservation of a Strategic and Critical Materials Supply This section would modify certain provisions of the President's authority to maintain and manage a national defense stockpile to allow the Defense Logistics Agency to more proactively engage in the market. These changes would grant the President the authority to conserve strategic and critical materials. Section 1412--Authority to Acquire Additional Materials for the National Defense Stockpile This section would provide authority to acquire certain additional strategic and critical materials for the National Defense Stockpile. The materials anticipated to be acquired have been identified to meet the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States. Subtitle C--Other Matters Section 1421--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds from the Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Section 1422--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home This section would authorize $67.8 million to be appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home during fiscal year 2014. Section 1423--Cemeterial Expenses This section would authorize $45.8 million to be appropriated for the Army for cemeterial expenses for Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia. TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS OVERVIEW The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for each fiscal year to include: (1) A request for the appropriation of funds for ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; (2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal year for operations; and (3) A detailed justification of the funds requested. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations to be available upon enactment of this Act to support overseas contingency operations principally associated with Operation Enduring Freedom. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations contained no funding for National Guard and Reserve Component equipment. Elsewhere in this Act, the budget request contained $4.2 billion for National Guard and Reserve Component equipment. The specific amount of resources, including equipment, needed to adequately sustain the National Guard and Reserve Component's operational reserve status remains a concern because of the fiscal environment, especially given the dual mission responsibility of the National Guard and Reserve Components, particularly the National Guard. The committee recognizes the National Guard and Reserve Components continue to report significant equipment shortages in modernized equipment, specifically in rotorcraft and tactical wheeled vehicles. Over the past 8 years, annual National Guard and Reserve Component equipment procurement averaged $7.0 billion. The committee is concerned that modernization funding across the Future Years Defense Program is only expected to average $3.8 billion annually, a significant reduction from prior year requests. The committee also notes that National Guard and Reserve Component equipment modernization is not funded to 100 percent of what the National Guard and Reserve Components believe their requirements to be and that they are expected to have unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2014. The committee believes additional funds would help eliminate identified shortfalls in the areas of critical dual- use equipment. The committee expects these funds to be used for the purposes of, but not limited to, the procurement of: aircraft, missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical radios, non-system training devices, logistics automation systems, remote weapon stations, chemical/biological protective shelters, internal and external fuel tanks for CH-47 and AH-64 rotorcraft, F-15 F100 engines, special mission propellers for C-130 aircraft, and other critical dual-use procurement items for the National Guard and Reserve Components. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to make every effort to identify the most critical National Guard and Reserve Component modernization programs and expedite funding for those programs. The committee recommends $400.0 million for National Guard and Reserve Component equipment within the Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends $4.2 billion, full funding of the request, for National Guard and Reserve equipment. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Support for U.S. Special Operations Forces and Partner Nation Forces The committee is aware of a $163.0 million operational requirement to provide additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities in support of U.S. and partner nation Special Operations Forces (SOF) within U.S. Central Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Southern Command. The requirement calls for the deployment of Buckeye Arrow Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and distributed command nodes to assist with mission support, mission planning, and terrain mapping, and to more effectively enable U.S. and partner nation special operations elements with collection management and ISR training. Buckeye UAV systems have successfully deployed to the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and U.S. Africa Command. These systems have provided more than 400,000 square kilometers of unclassified high-resolution and high-accuracy color imagery and elevation data in support of U.S. Special Operations Forces and partner nation forces. Given the importance of the U.S. government's partnership strategies, the committee believes that this validated ISR requirement for U.S. and partner nation SOF should be rapidly addressed by U.S. Army Geospatial Center and other supporting commands out of funds made available to Army, Operation and Maintenance, Overseas Contingency Operations funding. Therefore the committee encourages the immediate and full resourcing of this $163.0 million operational ISR requirement to enable U.S. Special Operations Forces and partner nation forces. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations Section 1501--Purpose This section would establish this title and make authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional costs due to overseas contingency operations. Section 1502--Procurement This section would authorize additional appropriations for procurement at the levels identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act. Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation This section would authorize additional appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act. Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance This section would authorize additional appropriations for operation and maintenance programs at the levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. Section 1505--Military Personnel This section would authorize additional appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. Section 1506--Working Capital Funds This section would authorize additional appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Section 1507--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense- Wide This section 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. Section 1508--Defense Inspector General This section would authorize additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Section 1509--Defense Health Program This section would authorize additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Financial Matters Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations This section would state that amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority This section would authorize the transfer of up to $3.0 billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title. Subtitle C--Limitations and Other Matters Section 1531--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund This section would amend section 1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110- 181), as amended by subsection 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), as most recently amended by section 1531 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), by extending the existing limitations on the availability of funds for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) through fiscal year 2014. This section also would require the Secretary of Defense to revise the plan required by section 1531(e) of Public Law 112-239 to ensure that an office or official of the Department of Defense is identified as responsible for each program or activity supported by ASFF, using funds available to the Department of Defense. Additionally, this section would require that of the funds available to the Department of Defense for ASFF for fiscal year 2014, at least $47.3 million shall be used for the recruitment and retention of women in the Afghanistan National Security Forces within planned ASFF programs and activities. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would require that of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, $2.61 billion may not be obligated or expended until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies to the congressional defense committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that the United States and the Government of Afghanistan have signed a bilateral security agreement and that such agreement includes certain specified requirements. Section 1532--Future Role of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for the future role of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) and to provide this plan to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1533--Limitation on Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Support for Operation Observant Compass This section would require that none of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for operation and maintenance by section 1504, as specified in the funding table in section 4302 of this Act, may be obligated or expended for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support for Operation Observant Compass until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report, required elsewhere in this Act, on Operation Observant Compass, including the specific goals of the campaign to counter the Lord's Resistance Army, the precise metrics used to measure progress in such campaign, and the required steps that will be taken to transition such campaign if it is determined that it is no longer necessary for the United States to support the mission of such campaign. Section 1534--Report on United States Force Levels and Costs of Military Operations in Afghanistan This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than January 15, 2014, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on: (1) The estimated United States force levels in Afghanistan for each of the years 2015 through 2020. (2) The estimated costs of United States military operations in Afghanistan for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2020. TITLE XVI--INDUSTRIAL BASE MATTERS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Apportionment of Small Business Funds under Continuing Resolutions The committee is concerned that the majority of Department of Defense programs receiving Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) funding are yet to receive fiscal year 2013 funding. The committee understands that the delay may be due to a continuing budget resolution (CR), even though it is now more than half- way through the fiscal year. Under such a CR, Federal agencies remain responsible for assessing the SBIR and STTR set-asides, and executing program support for small business technology innovation. The committee believes that SBIR/STTR awardees should not be deprived of funds legitimately competed and vitally needed for business stability, especially during this period of extreme economic uncertainty. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that future SBIR/STTR funding availability may also be delayed, causing significant hardships for these small businesses. The committee also believes that it is imperative that Department of Defense comptrollers move expeditiously to calculate the SBIR/STTR assessments and make those funds available to military service and agency SBIR/STTR programs commensurate with those assessments, as well as to those small businesses who have been deprived of SBIR/STTR awards and related funds. The committee encourages the Department, in circumstances when a CR extends past three months, to release 75 percent of CR funding for SBIR/STTR by the beginning of the fourth month of that CR. Carbon Nanotube Devices The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is pursuing carbon nanotube based technologies to support the development of microelectronics to enhance the processing and radiation-hardening capabilities of satellite electronic systems. The committee supports development of carbon nanotube applications for random access memory and electronically erasable read only memory, including the development of domestic, commercial manufacturing sources for such microelectronics. The committee believes that these applications will provide substantially greater capability for radiation-hardened microelectronics, and the domestic commercial capability will ensure both trusted sources, as well as economies of scale that can potentially drive down unit costs. The committee encourages the Department to examine ways to support the development and expansion of this industrial base sector through means such as, but not limited to, the Industrial Base Innovation Fund or Defense Production Act Title III. Communication between the Department of Defense and Industry The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DoD) must collaborate and contract with various information technology vendors to help ensure that the Department has the most effective and innovative technologies available to achieve its mission. The committee recognizes that these contracts are only as effective as the collaboration, information sharing, open dialogue, and unfettered access between the government customer and the commercial vendor. These companies regularly communicate with the Department on planning, certification, deployment of products and services, resolution of service issues, product innovation, resource planning and utilization, and maintenance of the product and service security. However, the committee is concerned that the Department has curtailed communication between technology providers and their customers throughout the Army, Air Force, and the Defense Information Systems Agency. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that these restrictions of access would appear to violate the implied term of good faith cooperation that is contained within every government contract. The committee understands that communication restrictions are in place on both the Department and potential business partners during the contracting process, and are appropriate at that stage of the acquisition process. However, the committee believes that open dialogue outside that direct acquisition process should be regularly maintained and encouraged by the Department in order for the Government to realize the full value of information technology products and services and best support the warfighter. The committee believes that both the Department and the commercial vendors need timely and consistent access in order to: (1) Answer questions quickly about the scope and capabilities of the software to solve problems quickly and efficiently; (2) Provide mission support to the end-user operational forces; (3) Disseminate information on the features and upgrades purchased in order to fully utilize available contracts and avoid procuring duplicative solutions; and (4) Work with the Department on designs and requirements that can be incorporated into ongoing research and development efforts so that the Department receives the most innovative, efficient, and effective products and services. Contracting for Textiles and Clothing The committee supports maintaining the integrity of section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, commonly referred to as the ``Berry Amendment,'' which requires 100 percent U.S. content for certain products sourced for the Armed Forces. The committee is concerned with protecting the supply chain and domestic production base for components and weapon systems that are vital to the Armed Forces. In addition, the practice of sourcing certain products and materials from foreign entities in violation of the Berry Amendment may harm the domestic industrial base, as well as result in U.S. job losses. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to periodically review the Department's compliance with established restrictions. Defense Security Service Access to Information in Conducting the National Industrial Security Program The committee is aware that the Defense Security Service (DSS) supports national security by securing the Nation's technology base and overseeing the protection of sensitive and classified information and technology in the hands of industry. According to its mission statement, DSS is ``responsible for clearing industrial facilities, personnel, and associated information systems; collecting, analyzing, and providing threat information to industry and government partners; managing foreign ownership control and influence in cleared industry; providing advice and oversight to industry; delivering security education and training; and, providing information technology services that support the industrial security mission of the Department of Defense and its partner agencies.'' According to the 2012 DSS report, ``Targeting Technology: A Trend Analysis of Reporting from Defense Industry'', aggressive cyber collection activities increasingly target cleared contractor networks in attempts to obtain sensitive U.S. information and technologies. Although the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, dated February 28, 2006, requires information systems that are used to process or distribute classified information to be properly managed to protect against unauthorized disclosure of classified information and requires cleared contractors to remain vigilant and to report suspicious contacts, there is insufficient governance, monitoring, and reporting of cyber attacks on the unclassified networks of the cleared contractors. The committee believes that intrusions on the unclassified networks of cleared contractors may be the very first indicator that a foreign entity is attempting to compromise or exploit cleared personnel, or to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to sensitive information and technology resident in the cleared industrial base. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that such attacks could garner sensitive, but unclassified, information and data that when aggregated could provide the foreign entity with much of the information that is being sought. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to review DODI 5220.22M and all other relevant guidance to ensure that the ability of DSS to support protection of sensitive and classified information and technology is not being hampered by a lack of access to information regarding intrusions on the unclassified networks of cleared contractors. Following the review, the Secretary is further directed to brief the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees by February 1, 2014, on the findings of the review, along with any recommendations to strengthen the ability of DSS to secure the Nation's technology base. Furthermore, as noted elsewhere in this report, the committee remains concerned about the potential presence of specific information technology equipment manufactured by firms with known links to the government and military of the People's Republic of China, namely, Huawei and ZTE Corporation, in networks that are critical to the Department of Defense. The committee is concerned that some of this equipment could potentially be resident in the networks of cleared defense contractors. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of Defense Security Service to develop a plan by February 1, 2014, to enhance awareness of the threat posed by such technology, to aid cleared contractors in identifying and reporting the presence of such technology in their classified and unclassified networks, and to reduce the likelihood of such technology being incorporated into these networks in the future. Export Control Reform The committee remains strongly supportive of reform of our nation's export control system. While export controls play a critical role in protecting critical technology for our defense systems, a system that makes no distinction between a fighter aircraft or a simple and widely available non-critical component used on that aircraft is not only unwieldy, but threatens the competitiveness of American companies. On March 8, 2013, in an Executive Order signed by the President, authorities related to the administration of certain export and import controls were updated in a significant and far-reaching way. The committee looks forward to the completion of this phase of the reform and additional efforts to comprehensively modernize and update the system. The committee supports continued progress towards export control reform that will protect our nation's security while ensuring our nation's economic competitiveness, including timely and responsive processes for designating control protocols, enhanced information technology systems to aid in accountability, and coordinated enforcement. The committee notes that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs have primary legislative oversight of export control reform efforts and the appropriate expertise. The committee believes that in order for further export control reform to succeed, the Administration must work hand-in-hand with these committees of jurisdiction. Foreign Commercial Satellite Services Review The committee is aware that the Department of Defense relies on many commercial companies to provide satellite services of national security importance, including commercial satellite communications. For instance, on January 24, 2013, the Defense Business Board reported that commercial satellite communications account for 40 percent of the Department's satellite communications. Over the past year, the committee has conducted oversight of the Department's leases of commercial satellite services, particularly relating to satellites owned, operated, or launched by states subject to sanctions and laws, such as section 1261(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) and the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act (Public Law 106-178). Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision regarding its concerns with what it has learned about several of these leases. While the committee has received some information from the Department regarding several leases of satellite services of certain foreign providers, the responses to many straight- forward questions have changed over time. The committee is disappointed by the Department's lack of clarity on this issue, and the committee is concerned that the Department has not established effective management controls over commercial satellite leases, and in particular, ones regarding certain foreign providers. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2013, on any Department of Defense commercial services over satellites owned, operated, or launched by states subject to sanctions and laws, such as section 1261(c)(2) of Public Law 112-239, and the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act. The briefing should include: (1) The projected period of performance (including any period covered by options to extend the contract), the financial terms, and a description of the services to be provided under each contract; (2) Identification of the satellites that will be used to provide the necessary services, including a description of where they were launched from and currently operate from; (3) Identification, to the extent practical, of foreign government ownership of the foreign providers; (4) Identification of risks, and a description of any applicable policies and procedures to mitigate the risks, of using certain foreign commercial satellite services; and (5) A description of why other commercial or U.S. Government providers, including the Operationally Responsive Space office, were not available or tasked to fill the requirement. Germanium Wafer Defense Industrial Base The committee endorses the Department of Defense's commitment to promote domestic germanium substrate manufacturing capabilities for national security space, as reflected in the Department's 2012 report, ``Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress.'' The committee also notes that in the report, the Department modified its germanium upgrade program to emphasize full and open competition as a key program for securing materials. The committee believes that focusing its efforts on competition, specifically domestic competition, will help the Department accomplish two critical objectives: (1) providing best value in contracting for germanium substrates; and (2) fostering continued development of the germanium substrates manufacturing base. The committee encourages the Department to continue using full and open competition and other competitive best practices in developing domestic germanium substrate manufacturing capabilities and capacities. Improving Information Technology Acquisition Outcomes The committee is aware that the Department of Defense continues to face challenges in its efforts to effectively acquire information technology (IT) resources. Even as the importance of such IT systems increases, from providing mission critical systems for intelligence analysis and fusion to time and cost-savings capabilities for electronic health records and financial auditability, the Department's success rate in developing, acquiring and implementing these systems remains mediocre, at best. This point is underscored by the failure of recent IT initiatives by the Department, such as the Expeditionary Combat Support System, the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System, or the Net-Enabled Command Capability. The committee believes that part of the challenge that the Department faces is in its reliance on processes that are too heavily focused on the acquisition of militarily-unique hardware systems. The committee recognizes that the paradigm for IT acquisition is rooted more firmly in the commercial marketplace. As a consumer of commercially-developed solutions, rather than a generator of unique requirements, the Department follows commercial trends more often than it leads them. Unfortunately, the committee believes that the Department has not done enough to come to terms with this trend, choosing instead to act as though it has the same power to influence computing and electronics markets as it did for most of the 20th century. Though numerous studies have indicated a need to change acquisition processes within the Department to adjust to the reality of 21st century commercial IT markets, the Department has made little progress. Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 111-84) authorized the Department to implement a new acquisition process for IT systems, but to date, there has been little tangible action to take advantage of those new authorities. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the progress of implementing an IT-specific acquisition process, as well as how lessons are being learned from recent IT failures in order to improve the outcomes for current and future efforts. Monitoring and Enforcement of Mitigation Agreements Related to Foreign Investment in the United States The committee is aware that the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 100-49) requires the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to designate a lead agency to negotiate, modify, monitor and enforce agreements to mitigate any threat to national security that could result from foreign investment in the U.S. economy. The committee notes that during fiscal year 2012, the Department of Defense was named lead or co-lead of approximately 50 percent of the 121 CFUIS filings. Furthermore, the committee notes that the Defense Security Service (DSS) reviews and responds to every CFUIS filing to identity implications of the proposed investment on the National Industrial Security Program, and also executes and provides oversight of Foreign Ownership Control or Influence (FOCI) mitigation requirements. However, DSS is not currently charged with monitoring implementation of, and compliance with, CFIUS mitigation agreements for those cases in which the Department of Defense was a lead or co-lead. Instead, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy is performing that function. The committee is concerned that the monitoring of CFIUS mitigation agreements is being performed by a policy organization that currently lacks the resources, technical expertise, facilities, and relationships with other oversight and investigative agencies to provide reasonable oversight of implementation of, and compliance with, these mitigation agreements. While it is appropriate for the Deputy Assistant Secretary to be charged with responsibility for recommending actions related to enforcement of such mitigation agreements, the Department may benefit from leveraging the capabilities of DSS for monitoring implementation and compliance. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the role of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy in monitoring CFIUS mitigation agreements in which the Department of Defense was the lead or co-lead, and to determine if DSS is suited to perform these functions. The committee further directs the Secretary to report the findings of the review to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2013. National Defense Stockpile Beryllium Upgrade The committee is aware the Administrator of Defense Logistics Agency Strategic Materials tested a process for upgrading hot-pressed beryllium billets in the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) to high-purity beryllium powders capable of near-net shape processing. Initial results lead the committee to believe the high-purity beryllium powder resulting from upgrading hot-pressed billets can reduce the amount of time required to integrate stockpiled beryllium into national security programs and can result in more efficient processing with less waste. The committee also notes that vacuum cast ingots in the NDS are held for the National Nuclear Security Administration and should be retained in that form. The committee recognizes that adequate supplies of beryllium for both conventional and strategic programs are vital to the defense industrial base, and encourages the Administrator to take such steps as necessary to ensure the stockpile of hot-pressed beryllium billets is upgraded to meet demands without undue lead times and in a manner that protects against obsolescence. Next Generation Global Positioning System Receiver Equipment The committee notes the current schedule for Global Positioning System (GPS) III spacecraft, Next Generation Operational Control System, and the user equipment is not aligned. The user equipment is scheduled to be fielded at least one year later than the other elements of the program. The committee recommends the Department of Defense accelerate the fielding of user equipment capable of receiving the legacy and modernized military codes from the GPS. Further, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to establish approved security evaluation and certification processes and procedures, as well as to support and ensure sufficient redundancy of the GPS user equipment industrial base. Regional Commercialization Activities The committee is aware that the Department of Defense continues to be challenged in commercializing and transitioning technology developed through federally funded research and development. The Department has a number of tools at its disposal to support these activities, such as the Commercialization Readiness Program, the Manufacturing Technology Program and the Mentor-Protege program, but few are focused on tapping into the regional innovation centers across the Nation. The committee understands that the Office of Naval Research has funded some initiatives that support the regional technology commercialization ecosystem. For example, the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research provides some administrative support and subject matter expertise for small and emerging businesses in diverse fields such as agriculture, renewable energy and health information systems. Also, the Hawaii Technology Development Venture is a project supporting Hawaii-based technology businesses, as well as current and future Department of Navy and Department of Defense programs. In addition, the committee notes that section 252 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) allowed the Secretary of Defense to use the research and engineering network of the Department of Defense to support the regional advanced technology clusters established by the Secretary of Commerce to encourage the development of technologies for national security and homeland defense challenges. The committee sees such activities as useful means to leverage state and local technology investments, and encourages the Department to find similar mechanisms for supporting the nation's industrial base for emerging technologies. Report on Diversification of Supply Activities Related to Rare Earth Elements The committee is aware that in response to the report required by section 843 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) and based on forecasting demand for fiscal year 2013 only, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics concluded that domestic production of rare earth elements could satisfy the level of consumption required to meet defense procurement needs by fiscal year 2013, with the exception of yttrium. However, the committee observes that the Future Years Defense Program indicates that consumption of rare earth elements is expected to increase after 2013. Specifically, the report on the feasibility and desirability of recycling, recovery, and reprocessing of rare earth elements required by the conference report (H. Rept. 112-329) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, states that each SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine would require approximately 9,200 pounds of rare earth materials, each DDG-51 Aegis destroyer would require approximately 5,200 pounds of these materials, and each F-35 Lightning II aircraft would require approximately 920 pounds of these materials. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense intends to pursue a three-pronged strategy to secure supplies of rare earth elements, which consists of diversification of supply, pursuit of substitutes, and a focus on reclamation of waste, as part of a larger U.S. Government recycling effort. The committee believes that diversification of supply activities related to rare earth elements is necessary in order to meet the growing demand for these materials, but the committee is concerned that some of these processes may prove to be technically difficult or so expensive that they are deemed cost-prohibitive. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2014, on the Department's risk mitigation strategy for rare earth elements, which should include, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) A list and description of the programs initiated or planned to reclaim rare earth elements by the Department, along with a description of the materials reclaimed or expected to be reclaimed from such programs; (2) An assessment of the cost of materials produced by these reclamation efforts compared to the cost of newly-mined materials; (3) An assessment of availability of reliable suppliers in the National Defense Industrial Base for the reclamation and reprocessing of rare earth elements; (4) A list of alternative sources of supply, such as mine tailings, recycled components, and consumer waste, that the Department has investigated or plans to investigate; (5) A physical description of alternative sources of supply with corresponding geologic characteristics, such as grade, resource size, and the amenability of that feedstock to metallurgical processing; (6) A description of the materials that the Department plans to obtain via the Defense Priorities and Allocations System; and (7) Other diversification of supply activities deemed relevant by the Under Secretary. Report on Export of Night Vision Devices The committee is concerned that restrictions on the export of night vision devices do not reflect the current state of the global marketplace and, as a result, domestic producers of the devices are prohibited from marketing products overseas that are commonly available from foreign competitors. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to examine the export regulations and specifications related to the sale or transfer of night vision devices and to inform the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2014, of any recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes to ensure a robust domestic manufacturing capability of these devices. Report on the Integrity of the Supply Chain for Nuclear Command and Control and Critical Defense Capabilities The committee is aware that critical infrastructure is not just physical, but also encompasses information and information systems, as well as supports infrastructure. According to the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program documents, there is ``no single solution to ensure the protection of information and the associated information infrastructure,'' and to address these mission assurance needs, the Department of Defense (DOD) has developed a ``defense-in-depth'' strategy which includes a variety of tools to assess the robustness and security- readiness of DOD networks. The committee is aware of the many threats facing the mission assurance of critical aspects of the Department, and in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee included a requirement for the Secretary of Energy to report on the supply chain security and integrity of the nuclear weapons complex. In responding to that reporting requirement, the Secretary of Energy found the presence of specific information technology equipment manufactured by the firm Huawei, which has known links to the Government and military of the People's Republic of China, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The Secretary of Energy informed the committee that, once technology linked to Huawei was found within the LANL network, steps were promptly taken to remove it from that network. The committee commends this action, but is concerned that such technology was incorporated into the LANL networks in the first place. The committee is also aware of the bipartisan investigative report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ``[t]he U.S. National Security Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE.'' The committee notes that the bipartisan recommendations of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence included: ``(1) The United States should view with suspicion the continued penetration of the U.S. telecommunications market by Chinese telecommunications companies; (2) Private Sector entities in the United States are strongly encouraged to consider the long-term security risks associated with doing business with either ZTE or Huawei for equipment or services; and, (3) Committees of jurisdiction in the U.S. Congress should consider potential legislation to better address the risk posed by telecommunications companies with nation-state ties or otherwise not clearly trusted to build critical infrastructure.'' In addition, the Defense Security Service reported in its 2012 report, ``Targeting U.S. Technologies'' that, ``[t]he stakes are high in the battle against foreign collection efforts and espionage that target U.S. technology, intellectual property, trade secrets, and proprietary information.'' The report went on to state that East Asia and the Pacific accounted for 43 percent of the reported foreign attempts to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to sensitive (including proprietary information) and or classified information and technology residing in the cleared industrial base. These findings only heighten the committee's concerns about the security risks associated with the presence of information technology manufactured by firms with known affiliation to the military and Government of China. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the telecommunications and information technology supply chain of select components of the Department of Defense, including the nuclear command and control infrastructure. Such a review should include an inspection of the critical assets, infrastructure, and key resources identified by the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program for presence of Huawei and ZTE telecommunications and information technology equipment. The Secretary should submit a report on the findings of the review, along with any recommendations for improving the mission assurance of the Department's critical information and the associated information infrastructure, to the House Committee on Armed Services by July 1, 2014, with an interim report due by February 15, 2014. Report on the Implementation of Rare Earth Elements Strategy in the Joint Strike Fighter Program The committee is aware that the Department of Defense intends to pursue a three-pronged strategy to secure supplies of rare earth elements, which consists of diversification of supply, pursuit of substitutes, and a focus on reclamation of waste as part of a larger U.S. Government recycling effort. However, it remains unclear how this strategy will be implemented in the Department's major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). Several high-profile MDAPs, including the F- 35 Lightening II program, may use significant amounts of rare earth elements in full-rate production. The committee is concerned that the introduction of substitute materials and components may increase acquisition and sustainment costs through the qualification of manufacturers for substitutes, implementation of engineering changes to accommodate substitutes, and the long-term costs associated with supplier networks. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, in coordination with the Program Executive Officer for the F-35, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2014, on the potential for substitution of components and materials into F-35 aircraft to reduce consumption of rare earth materials. The report, which may include a classified annex, should include the following: (1) A list and description of subsystems that contain rare earth elements and the approximate quantities of each rare earth element by subsystem; (2) An assessment of the potential to incorporate substitute components or materials in each subsystem based on technical acceptability, to include consideration of performance requirements, and engineering changes that may be necessary for integration of the substitute; and (3) An assessment of the potential to incorporate substitute components or materials in each subsystem based on cost acceptability to include consideration of material costs, qualification and testing costs, and engineering change costs. Risks to the Cruise Missile Industrial Base The committee is aware that, in the August 2012 ``Annual Industrial Capabilities Base Report to Congress,'' the Department of Defense noted that the lack of new missile program development, along with decreases in Tactical Tomahawk procurement quantities and delays to the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range low-rate initial production programs, are combining to threaten the viability of the long- range cruise missile propulsion sector. The report states that these factors may lead to the disbandment of highly specialized engineering design teams associated with developing and sustaining cruise missile systems. The committee notes that the development of cruise missiles by foreign nations has led to higher-speed, longer-range weapons, and advanced air defense capabilities abroad. The committee is concerned that the Department has not developed a plan to address the sustainment of the cruise missile industrial base in light of emerging threats abroad, and that, without sustainment of the existing cruise missile propulsion capabilities, future development of needed advancements may be significantly delayed and will likely come at a much higher cost. The committee believes that preserving the existing national cruise missile propulsion capability, with an emphasis on sustaining design engineering teams, is of utmost importance. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue to closely monitor this portion of the industrial base and to take such steps as necessary to ensure risks to the viability of this sector are appropriately mitigated. Small Business Size Standards The committee understands the importance of the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) to ensure fair and competitive economic activity between Government buying authorities and the small and large businesses that compose the U.S. defense industrial base. The committee is aware that at 5-year intervals U.S. authorities, in conjunction with their counterparts in Mexico and Canada, confer on necessary adjustments and realignments to the NAICS codes. The committee also recognizes that the Small Business Administration (SBA) has the authority to determine the appropriate size standards associated with each NAICS code based on factors concerning business revenue or number of employees. However, when the periodic realignment of the NAICS codes causes what was previously coded as one industry to now be recognized as multiple industries, or what were previously considered separate industries to be consolidated into a single code, it inadvertently affects the assignment of size standards which, in turn, has consequences for important segments of the defense industrial base. For example, under the 2007 iteration of the NAICS code determination, footwear manufacturing was broken into five discrete categories with their own individual codes and size standards: Rubber and Plastics Footwear Manufacturing, code 316211, 1,000 employee size standard; House Slipper Manufacturing, code 316212, 500 employee size standard; Men's Footwear (except Athletic) Manufacturing, code 361213, 500 employee size standard, Women's Footwear (except Athletic) Manufacturing, code 361214, 500 employee size standard; and Other Footwear Manufacturing, code 361219, 500 employee size standard. However, under the 2012 NAICS code determination, these were consolidated into one code with one size standard: Footwear Manufacturing, code 361210, 1000 employees. The result is that businesses that were previously considered large are now considered small without SBA having made an affirmative decision that the larger size standard is appropriate. As a consequence, in at least one of these NAICS codes, all but one company doing business with the Federal Government is now considered small, which may distort the market and disproportionately harm those businesses with fewer than 500 employees. The committee recognizes the effort of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to comply with recent realignment of NAICS codes and subsequent adjustments to small business size standards related to footwear as it applies Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 19. However, the committee in concerned that SBA failed to observe the normal rulemaking and public comment process that governs changes to the size standards, thereby not allowing industry the ability to register comments. The committee believes that SBA's decision to update size standards without adherence to the normal rulemaking process has undermined the sustainability of the industrial base, discouraged competitive procurement, creates negative effects throughout industrial sectors needed to support warfighter, and harmed true small businesses. Although DLA did initially respond to the changes to the small business size standards as they relate to footwear and began setting aside contracts that were previously available for full and open competition, the committee recognizes that DLA has the purchasing authority to appropriately scope procurement requirements and contracting processes in order to ensure appropriate pricing, product quality and equipment suitability are achieved from available vendors, and protect the diversity of the industry necessary to meet surge requirements. The committee encourages DLA to exercise this flexibility and authority to maximize the buying power for military footwear, particularly in light of the fact that the SBA made the changes without adherence to standard protocols. Furthermore, the committee remains concerned about the harm this type of action could cause to legitimate small businesses. When the size standards are over-inflated to include large businesses, true small businesses lose the protections normally afforded to them in the procurement system, which may harm the industrial base. The committee looks forward to working with the House Committee on Small Business to address these policy concerns. Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base The committee has long been concerned about the health and long-term viability of the large solid rocket motor (SRM) industrial base. A number of studies and assessments in the past several years have reinforced these concerns. Demand for large SRMs has decreased dramatically in recent years, particularly with the decision by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to retire, terminate, or delay certain launch programs, including the Constellation program. The Air Force Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program and Navy Trident II/D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile program rely on this industrial base and now bear the increasing cost of SRMs. The committee believes the industrial base has been diligent in reducing overhead costs and excess capacity, and the committee believes that significant further cuts may result in the permanent loss of key capabilities and skills. The committee notes that while the Navy continues low-rate production of D5 solid rocket motors, the Air Force ceased acquisition of new SRMs for the Minuteman III ICBM program at the conclusion of the Propulsion Replacement Program in 2009. The committee recognizes that the Air Force will need to acquire additional Minuteman III SRMs to extend the life of this system to 2030, as currently planned, or potentially beyond. The committee encourages the Air Force to consider the health of the SRM industrial base when considering when and how to resume production and, as with all major acquisition programs, encourages whenever possible the use of full and open competition in executing such an acquisition. Finally, the committee notes the potential for greater commonality between Air Force and Navy SRM systems. Initiatives to increase commonality between the Services may lead to significant cost savings and a more robust industrial base through a smaller but more consistently utilized supply chain. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy to explore commonality across their respective SRM-based strategic weapon systems to increase efficiencies and save costs, but cautions that such commonality should be carefully considered so that it does not unacceptably increase technical risks from the failure of common components. Space Surveillance Telescope The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has developed a Space Surveillance Telescope (SST) program in order to demonstrate an advanced ground-based optical system to detect and track faint objects in space. The committee understands that DARPA has signed a memorandum of agreement with the Air Force to transition SST to Air Force Space Command for operational use. Furthermore, the committee understands that SST will be moved to the Commonwealth of Australia for further operational demonstrations in a relevant environment with a richer and more interesting population of SSA targets in geosynchronous orbit. However, the committee believes this move presents numerous challenges, including logistical and technical communications obstacles resulting from a site that is significantly more remote than the current SST location. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the logistical and sustainment strategy for SST. The briefing should address the plans for providing the maintenance and spare parts for SST after it is moved to Australia. Specialty Metals Clause Waiver Processes and Notification The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) issued national security waivers to the specialty metals clause under section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) for certain samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies in the F-35 Lightning II aircraft. The committee is aware that at least two qualified suppliers in the domestic defense industrial base currently hold contracts directly with the Department for similar magnets and magnet assemblies. Moreover, a third qualifying supplier indirectly provides these materials to the Department through other prime contractors. These qualifying suppliers continue to manufacture samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies for fixed wing, missile, and radar programs. The committee is increasingly concerned that this use of national security waivers contravenes the congressional intent of Public Law 110-181, which, among other purposes, is to facilitate competition and guarantee a secure supply chain of certain materials. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to investigate the issuance of these national security waivers for samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies, and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, that includes, at minimum, a description of the following: (1) The extent to which distributor-fabricators who supplied non-compliant samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies to DOD prime or subcontractors knowingly and/or willfully supplied samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies manufactured by foreign suppliers to subcontractors for inclusion in the F-35 program; (2) The extent to which distributor-fabricators who supplied non-compliant samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies to DOD prime or subcontractors were aware of, or engaged with, qualified sources for samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies on other commercial or defense contracts; (3) The extent to which acquisition officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the F- 35 Joint Program Office were aware of, or engaged with, qualified sources for samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies on other subcontracts; (4) The criteria, method, or process utilized by OSD acquisition officials to define and determine ``knowing and willful'' as it pertains to noncompliance with the specialty metals clause; (5) Recommendations to improve the criteria, method, or process utilized by OSD acquisition officials to define and determine ``knowing and willful'' as it pertains to noncompliance with the specialty metals clause; (6) Recommendations for DOD acquisition policy changes, such as consideration of previous noncompliance on future contracts, fines by non- compliant lower-tier suppliers, or suspension and debarment, that may adequately deter or dissuade lower- tier suppliers from knowingly and/or willingly violating acquisition regulations and other rules promulgated in accordance with section 2533b of title 10, United States Code; and (7) Recommendations to improve the Department's supply chain management procedures and actions necessary to prevent such lapses in the future. Transfer of International Traffic in Arms Regulations Controlled Missile Defense Technology to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration The committee received allegations that certain Missile Defense Agency technology was involved in the transfer of International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) controlled missile defense technology to unauthorized foreign nationals. The committee further understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), upon investigation of this alleged transfer, referred the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the FBI and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, the Science, Space and Technology Committee of the House, and the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee of the Senate, not later than August 1, 2013, on the following: (1) What U.S. missile defense technology or information, classified or export-controlled, NASA had access to prior to June 1, 2013, and what was the purpose of NASA's access to such technology or information? What protective measures were imposed to insure proper handling of this information and technology by NASA? (2) The status of any FBI investigation into whether U.S. missile defense technology to which NASA had access was allowed to be transferred to persons without lawful authority to access said technology. (3) If an FBI investigation has determined that missile defense technology was in fact transferred; provide a damage assessment of the consequence of the loss of this technology; and how a state, such as the People's Republic of China, could exploit such technology to improve its offensive or defensive military capabilities or to counter U.S. offensive or defensive military capabilities. Trusted Sources of Microelectronics The committee remains concerned about the state of defense microelectronics, with regards to both the availability of a trusted supply chain, as well as the long-term health and vitality of the industrial base. The committee fully recognizes the critical importance to the Department of Defense of sustaining and improving the supply of trusted semiconductors, supply chain components and inspection tools manufactured in the United States. The committee is also concerned that the Department's recent microelectronics strategy lacked depth of detail to comprehensively address the areas of sustained investment, as well as new areas of emphasis in the future, such as photonics and optoelectronic components. The committee is aware that the Department is revising this strategy, but until such time, the Department will be challenged in supporting decisions regarding what course of action may be most beneficial to the industrial base. The committee recognizes the health of the microelectronics industrial base is a significant concern for our national security. The changing nature of the microelectronics industrial base, influenced heavily by the significant cost pressures associated with recapitalization and retooling, could be determined before the U.S. Government understands the changes taking place, or can act swiftly enough to respond effectively. The committee is aware that industry is potentially facing a major transition to larger sized, 450 mm wafers that will allow the manufacture of more advanced semiconductor devices at a lower cost. The committee believes that to get there will likely require the development of the next generation of manufacturing tools. The committee recognizes the value of pursuing technology research for other technologies that support fabless and maskless semiconductor development as a way to change the paradigm for the microelectronics industrial sector. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to expeditiously reexamine its defense microelectronics strategy, which should examine ways of supporting further technology development for fabless and maskless semiconductor production, as well as manufacturing tools for 450 mm wafers. Furthermore, the committee encourages the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to examine the challenges to the microelectronics industrial base during its Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier analyses. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 1601--Periodic Audits of Contracting Compliance by Inspector General of Department of Defense This section would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an audit of the Department's compliance with contracting practices and policies related to procurement under section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, which pertains to the requirement to buy certain articles from American sources and is frequently referred to as the ``Berry Amendment.'' This section would also require the Inspector General to include the findings of such periodic audits as part of the semiannual report transmitted to congressional committees as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452). Section 1602--Expansion of the Procurement Technical Assistance Program to Advance Small Business Growth This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to publish, and update annually, a list of capabilities and characteristics recommended to enable a qualified small business concern to become competitive as an other-than-small business for future contracts awarded by the Department of Defense. This section would also require any contract awarded to a qualified small business concern that would exceed the applicable receipt-based small business size standard (or if the contract would exceed $70.0 million in an industry with an employee based size standard) to include a contract clause that would encourage the small business to develop the capabilities and characteristics identified by the Under Secretary if they desire to remain competitive as other-than-small business in that industry. In addition, this section would amend chapter 142 of title 10, United States Code, to enable Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTAC) to provide additional support to these businesses without the funding and cost-share limitations that are otherwise applicable to PTAC support. Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit three annual reports to the congressional defense committees beginning on March 1, 2015, on the implementation of the amendments made by this section, along with any recommendations for improving the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program. Section 1603--Amendments Relating to Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program This section would amend section 2413 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to defray up to 65 percent of the eligible entity's cost of furnishing assistance under the program and would also amend section 2414 of title 10, United States Code, to increase limitations on the value of assistance that may be provided under the program. Section 1604--Strategic Plan for Requirements for War Reserve Stocks of Meals Ready-To-Eat This section would limit the authority of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to alter stockage level requirements for meals ready-to-eat (MRE) war reserves until a strategic plan is developed and is briefed to the congressional defense committees. The committee is concerned that the Defense Logistics Agency's potential reduction of its MRE war reserve stockage requirements may adversely impact military readiness. The committee commends DLA for initiating action to study the MRE war reserve but has concerns over potential reductions that could harm the industrial base and threaten military readiness for possible contingencies. Section 1605--Foreign Commercial Satellite Services This section would prevent the Secretary of Defense from entering into contracts for satellite services with a foreign entity that a covered foreign country has ownership interest or the foreign entity plans to or is expected to provide launch or other satellite services, including satellite operation, under the contract from a covered foreign country. A covered foreign country is defined as a country described in section 1261(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the prohibition for a particular contract if the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, submits a national security assessment for such contract to the congressional defense committees in an unclassified form, including a classified annex if necessary. The assessment shall include: (1) The projected period of performance (including any period covered by options to extend the contract), the financial terms, and a description of the services to be provided under the contract; (2) To the extent practicable, a description of the ownership interest that a covered foreign country has in the foreign entity providing satellite services to the Department of Defense under the contract and the launch or other satellite services (including satellite operation) that will be provided in a covered foreign country under the contract; (3) A justification for entering into a contract with such covered foreign entity and a description of the actions necessary to eliminate the need to enter into such a contract with such covered foreign entity in the future; and (4) A risk assessment of entering into a contract with such covered foreign entity, including an assessment of mission assurance and security of information and a description of any measures necessary to mitigate risks found by such risk assessment. The Secretary of Defense may delegate the waiver authority to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, or the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Section 1606--Proof of Concept Commercialization Pilot Program This section would allow the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to establish a 5-year pilot program to accelerate the commercialization of basic research innovations from qualifying institutions. DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS PURPOSE Division B provides military construction, family housing, and related authorities in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2014. As recommended by the committee, division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of $10,055,086,000 for construction in support of the Active Forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2014. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW The Department of Defense requested $9,017,563,000 for military construction, $451,357,000 for Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,542,713,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of $8,645,906,000 for military construction, $451,357,000 for BRAC activities, and $1,542,713,000 for family housing in fiscal year 2014. Section 2001--Short Title This section would cite division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.'' Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be Specified by Law This section would ensure that the authorizations provided in titles XXI through XXVII and XXIX shall expire on October 1, 2016, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. Section 2003--Effective Date This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX of this Act take effect on October 1, 2013, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $1,119,875,000 for Army military construction and $556,879,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of $1,099,875,000 for military construction and $556,879,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustment The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project contained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. This reduction includes: (1) $10.0 million for Command and Control Facility Administrative Areas at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. The budget request included $75.0 million to support the command and control requirements of the Army in the Pacific. While the committee supports the requirement for this facility, the committee is concerned that the unit cost for this facility is high compared to a standard design even when accounting for Area Cost Factors. Accordingly, the committee recommends $65.0 million, a reduction of $10.0 million, for this project. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Army construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2102--Family Housing This section would authorize new construction and planning and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2014. Section 2103--Authorization of Appropriations, Army This section would authorize appropriations for Army military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. Section 2104--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2004 Project This section would reauthorize a project initially provided in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108-136) at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, for construction of a Loading Facility. This section was included in the President's request. Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-84) and authorize the Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This section was included in the President's request. Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2101 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383) and authorize the Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This section was included in the President's request. Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Projects This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. This section was included in the President's request. Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. This section was included in the President's request. TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $1,700,269,000 for Navy military construction and $463,251,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of $1,700,269,000 for military construction and $463,251,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Navy construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2202--Family Housing This section would authorize new construction and planning and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2014. Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units This section would authorize improvements to existing units of family housing for fiscal year 2014. Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy This section would authorize appropriations for Navy military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. Section 2205--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project This section would limit the Secretary of the Navy from expending any funds authorized in this title that are associated with the land acquisition associated with the Townsend Bombing Range near Savannah, Georgia, until the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that an agreement with the local communities has been concluded that mitigates the loss of the real estate tax base. Section 2206--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383) and authorize the Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This section was included in the President's request. Section 2207--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81) and authorize the Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This section was included in the President's request. Section 2208--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. This section was included in the President's request. TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $1,156,573,000 for Air Force military construction and $464,958,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of $1,138,843,000 for military construction and $464,959,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2302--Family Housing This section would authorize new construction and planning and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2014. Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units This section would authorize improvements to existing units of family housing for fiscal year 2014. Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. Section 2305--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project This section would increase the construction scope associated with a Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar authorization, provided in the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112--239), to $128.0 million. The hangar is to be constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete and will be adequately sized to provide repairs, functionality checks, and aircraft inspections in support of the Pacific Airpower Resiliency (PAR) mission. The committee notes that the Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar is required to support a Continuous Bomber Presence, Tanker Task Force, Theater Security Packages, and the Global Hawk beddown. The lack of this hardened facility would significantly reduce readiness and could result in degradation of operational capabilities. The committee supports PAR's balance of dispersal and hardening, and this project is a critical component of that program. Section 2306--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project This section would limit the Secretary of the Air Force from expending any funds authorized by this title that are associated with the construction of a maintenance facility, a hazardous cargo pad, or an airport storage facility at Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, until the Secretary certifies that the Secretary will purchase the requisite real estate necessary to support these projects. Section 2307--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project This section would extend the authorization listed until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. This section was included in the President's request. TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $3,985,000,000 for defense agency military construction and $57,625,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of $3,708,373,000 for military construction and $57,625,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The budget request also contained $122,536,000 for chemical demilitarization construction. The committee recommends authorization of $122,536,000 for chemical demilitarization construction for fiscal year 2014. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustments The committee recommends reduction or elimination of funding for several projects contained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. These reductions include: (1) $3.6 million for the SOF Boat Docks at Naval Air Station Key West, Florida. The budget request included $3.6 million to repair and expand the existing boat dock facilities to support specialized training conducted by the Special Forces Underwater Operations School. While the committee supports the requirement for this capability, the committee believes the requirement can be met through the use of operation and maintenance funds. Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $3.6 million for this project. (2) $13.0 million for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Replacement Stage I, Increment 8 at Fort Detrick, Maryland. The budget request included $13.0 million to construct a replacement high-containment research laboratory and support space for USAMRIID. The committee notes that the Department of Defense could use bid savings to complete this increment of the project. As such, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $13.0 million for this project. (3) $12.4 million for the Ambulatory Care Center, Increment 2 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. The budget request included $76.2 million for the second increment of an ambulatory care center to support the delivery of care in the National Capital Region. The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute in the year or the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2014. As such, the committee recommends $63.8 million, a reduction of $12.4 million for this project. (4) $100.0 million for the Public Health Command Lab Replacement at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The budget request included $210.0 million for a multistory replacement laboratory to support the expanding requirements for Public Health Command Lab services. The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute in the year or the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2014. As such, the committee recommends $110.0 million, a reduction of $100.0 million for this project. (5) $14.4 million for the SOF Performance Resiliency Center at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The budget request included $14.4 million to support the Human Performance Initiative for East Coast based units assigned to U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC). The committee is concerned that the purpose of this facility is duplicative to existing physical fitness facilities and in conflict with medical care provided by the TRICARE Management Activity. As such, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $14.4 million for this project. (6) $100.0 million for the Hospital Replacement Increment 5 at Fort Bliss, Texas. The budget request included $252.1 million for the fifth increment of the Fort Bliss hospital replacement project to provide inpatient and outpatient care to the Ft. Bliss beneficiary population. The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute in the year or the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2014. As such, the committee recommends $152.1 million, a reduction of $100.0 million for this project. (7) $11.147 million for the SOF Human Performance Center at Naval Air Station Oceana (Dam Neck Annex), Virginia. The budget request included $11.147 million to support the Naval Special Warfare Development Group's High Performance Program. The committee is concerned that the purpose of this facility is duplicative to existing physical fitness facilities and in conflict with medical care provided by the TRICARE Management Activity. As such, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $11.147 million for this project. (8) $5.0 million for the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System Complex, Increment 2, at Deveselu, Romania. The budget request included $85.0 million for the second increment of a project to enhance regional ballistic missile defense against short- and medium- range ballistic missile threats. The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute in the year or the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2014. As such, the committee recommends $80.0 million, a reduction of $5.0 million for this project. (9) $7.83 million for the SOF Facility Augmentation at Torri Station, Japan. The budget request included $71.451 million to construct a company operations and support facilities necessary to support the growth of Special Operations Forces. While the committee is supportive of the majority of this project, the committee is concerned with an element of the project to support the tactical human optimization rapid rehabilitation and reconditioning and the resiliency programs. The committee is concerned that the purpose of this facility is in conflict with medical care provided by the TRICARE Management Activity. As such, the committee recommends $63.621 million, a reduction of $7.83 million for this project. (10) $10.0 million for Contingency Construction. The budget request included $10.0 million to support contingency construction requirements in support of projects not previously authorized by law. The committee notes that significant unobligated balances remain in this account and other authorities exist to construct projects that are in keeping with a national security interest. Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $10.0 million for this program. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized defense agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by- installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects at the amounts authorized by each project at a specific location valued at a cost greater than $2.0 million. This section would also authorize the sum total of projects across various locations, each project of which is less than $2.0 million. Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies This section would authorize appropriations for defense agencies military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide This section would authorize appropriations for chemical demilitarization construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY The budget request contained $239,700,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of $199,700,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2014. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously financed by the United States. Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO This section would authorize appropriations for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES SUMMARY The budget request contained $693,310,000 for military construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of $676,310,000 for military construction for fiscal year 2014. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustments The committee recommends reduction or elimination of funding for several projects contained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. These reductions include: (1) $4.0 million for the 175th Network Warfare Squadron Facility at Fort Meade, Maryland. The budget request included $4.0 million to support operations and training of an Air National Guard Network Warfare Squadron. The committee is concerned that the Commander, Cyber Command has not adequately established the requirements to support the National Guard and Reserves and is concerned that this project is early- to-need. The committee discuses this issue further in title IX. Accordingly, recommends no funds, a reduction of $4.0 million for this project. (2) $8.0 million for the CYBER/ISR Facility at Martin State Airport, Maryland. The budget request included $8.0 million to support a Network Warfare Group. The committee is concerned that the Commander, Cyber Command has not adequately established the requirements to support the National Guard and Reserve and therefore believes that this project is early-to-need. The committee discusses this issue further in title IX. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the budget request does not fully support the scope of the military construction project. Accordingly, recommends no funds, a reduction of $8.0 million for this project. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Army National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by- installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Army Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by- installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Air National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by- installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by- installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and Reserve This section would authorize appropriations for the National Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Other Matters Section 2611--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2603 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-239) and authorize the Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This section was included in the President's request. Section 2612--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. This section was included in the President's request. TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY The budget request contained $451,357,000 for activities related to Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities. The committee recommends authorization of $451,357,000 for BRAC activities. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decision of Base Realignment and Closure activities at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Other Matters Section 2711--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round This section would prohibit funds, appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations contained in this Act, to be use to propose, plan for, or execute an additional Base Closure and Realignment round. Section 2712--Elimination of Quarterly Certification Requirement Regarding Availabilty of Military Health Care in National Capital Region This section would repeal a quarterly reporting requirement regarding the capacity of the military health care system in the National Capital Region. The committee notes that sufficient capacity has been obtained in the National Capital Region to replace the loss of the former Walter Reed Army Military Medical Center, District of Columbia. TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Air Education and Training Command The committee recognizes the important role that Air Education and Training Command (AETC) plays in recruiting, training, and educating Airmen for the United States Air Force. A key mission set filled by AETC is the initial and follow-on flight training for pilots and aircrews. This includes Initial Flight Screening, Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training, Euro-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Joint Jet Pilot Training, Undergraduate Remotely-Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Training, and Undergraduate Combat Systems Officer Training among other programs. The committee has been made aware of adverse impacts to aircraft, facilities, equipment, and operations due to flooding and deficiencies in infrastructure at AETC installations. The committee encourages the Air Force to consider the impact these infrastructure deficiencies have had on AETC's ability to train Airmen due to damaged aircraft, facilities and equipment when prioritizing investments in the military construction and Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Maintenance programs. Air Force Institute of Technology Laboratory Recapitalization The committee is aware that a recapitalized research laboratory for the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) is required to support their mission. The laboratory is used for graduate engineering students to conduct original, defense- directed scientific research in cutting-edge national security topics such as stealth technology, nuclear engineering, unmanned aerial vehicles, cyberspace, and directed energy. Currently, most of AFIT's laboratory space is housed in three buildings that lack utility support and stable physical conditions for scientific experiments. As an alternative to traditional military construction, the committee encourages AFIT to pursue leasing arrangements, particularly those that would offer the Air Force cost savings through public partnerships. Analysis of Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads The committee notes that the Department of Defense supports the inclusion of both Type I and Type III retro-reflective glass beads in the Department of Defense construction specifications for airport construction and airport marking standards. However, the committee also notes that the index of refraction is higher for the Type III beads. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report by April 1, 2014 to the congressional defense committees that provides a business case analysis that compares the efficacy of continuing to specify both Type I and Type III retroreflective glass beads in the Department of Defense Unified Facilities Guide Specification Standards. Blast Protection for Forward Military Locations in Contingency Operations The committee is aware that establishing forward operating bases and outposts is required to support military operations, especially during stability or counterinsurgency operations. Such locations allow forces to conduct operations or logistic support activities. Due to the threat environment around these locations, greater security measures must be deployed, such as increasing standoff distances, hardening access of facilities, and installing blast protection measures where necessary to ensure the safety and security of personnel operating from such a location. In continuing to evaluate force protection requirements and procedures in contingency locations, the committee encourages the Department to assess current policies, procedures, and capabilities for blast protection of facilities in forward locations, to include current and appropriate standoff requirements, and new and available technology that could help reduce standoff distance requirements and improve force protection and building security. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the requirements and procedures in such contingency locations and to provide a briefing on the assessment to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2014. The briefing should include: a review of the current design basis threat; changes to security policies that would better protect personnel; and an assessment of current facility methods, to include standoff distances and physical barriers to address the design basis threat. The briefing should also address the availability of new technologies or procedures that provide a significant improvement against the design basis threat. Foreign Materiel Exploitation Consistent with the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee notes the importance of the foreign materiel exploitation of the Department of Defense. According to Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General Report Number 98-005, foreign materiel exploitation involves analysis, testing, and evaluation of foreign materiel to include testing against U.S. equipment. Foreign materiel exploitation supports Department of Defense acquisition programs, testing, threat simulator and target development, modeling and simulation, and training and tactics. The committee encourages the Department to ensure the military services have the necessary facilities and resources to perform this critical mission. Dayton Peace Accord Exhibit The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Accords, negotiated at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, in November 1995, ended the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and stands as one of the great contributions in our generation to ending armed conflict. Moreover, it is a testament to the value Americans place on promoting world peace. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to work with the Director of the National Park Services to develop appropriate permanent commemorative exhibits at or in the vicinity of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to tell the story to the American people as well as international visitors of America's contribution to peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina through the negotiation of the Dayton Accords. Department of Defense Joint Bases The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts to realize efficiencies through joint basing, but it is concerned that the intent of joint basing, including a consolidation of common services across the entirety of the joint base enterprise, has not realized its full potential. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the extent to which the Department of Defense has achieved joint operations and efficiencies at joint bases. Specifically, the report should address the following elements: (1) The common elements that are included in the individual joint base memoranda of agreements, differences that are unique to joint bases, and how the memoranda of agreements reflect best practices identified on joint bases on how the services interact and provide for support services; (2) The extent to which joint bases have implemented the terms of their memoranda of agreement, including adopting the joint standards to provide a single source for support services; (3) The extent to which the joint bases have reduced duplication of management and similar support services, achieved greater efficiencies through economies of scale, and consolidated and optimized existing and future service contract requirements; and (4) How the Department of Defense measures the improvement in joint operations from the joint bases and what the Department of Defense has found in measuring joint operations. Distributed Generation and Energy Security The committee is aware of the dependency of military facilities and installations across the globe on outside inputs, such as the electrical grid. The committee is also aware of myriad threats arrayed against such utilities in the cyber domain. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to evaluate available technologies for distributed power generation, including but not limited to fuel cells, microgrids, solar generation, wind turbines, other renewables and trigeneration, as part of its ongoing efforts for installation energy management to increase energy reliability and energy security, as defined in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81), with consideration for lifecycle cost savings and return- on-investment associated with such projects. European Consolidation Initiative The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is conducting an analysis of infrastructure capacity in Europe to provide the basis for reducing expenses through consolidations. The committee is supportive of the Department of Defense's effort to eliminate excess capacity overseas while ensuring that our infrastructure properly supports the operational and strategic requirements of the national security interests of the United States. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2014. The briefing shall address the results of the European Infrastructure Consolidation assessment and include an assessment of military force structure and infrastructure requirements overseas, to include an assessment of excess infrastructure and infrastructure capacity overseas and consideration of the consolidation of overseas infrastructure. Industrial Control Systems integration into the Department of Defense Networks In the development of an energy monitoring and utility control system specification for military construction and military family housing activities as required by section 2841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and energy metering requirements directed by section 2827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), the committee understands that the commercially developed control systems are required to seek compliance certifications to enable them to operate on Department of Defense networks. These compliance certifications are essential for national security, but due to the lengthy and cumbersome process to gain certification to operate on defense networks, the Department of Defense is unable to integrate the latest control energy monitoring and utility control systems into its overall physical plant and networking architecture. The committee believes that it is essential to expedite the compliance process that will allow for integration of needed, next-generation control systems while still ensuring adherence to network security protocols. Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/DOD Chief Information Officer, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014 on steps to improve the Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process to more rapidly ensure compliance for energy monitoring and utility control systems and to capture and track energy usage. Specifically, this briefing should address any updates to the Unified Facilities Guide Specification that are required to implement this direction. KC-46A Air National Guard Basing Strategy The committee understands that the Air Force plans to accept delivery of 179 KC-46A aircraft between 2016-28. The current strategic basing strategy, as briefed to the committee, proposed to base KC-46A aircraft at up to 10 Main Operating Bases (MOB). Of these, up to two will be Active Duty-led within the continental United States, up to four will be Air National Guard-led, up to two will be Air Force Reserve-led, and up to two will be located outside the continental United States. While the first Active Duty-led MOB will have a primary aircraft authorization (PAA) of 36 aircraft and the first Air National Guard-led MOB will have a PAA of 12 aircraft, the committee is aware that the Air Force is currently working to determine the most efficient basing construct for future Air National Guard-led MOBs. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, or a designee, to brief the House Committee on Armed Services on the basing strategy, to include PAA construct and basing criteria, for future Air National Guard-led MOBs, no later than 30 days before a final basing decision is made. Leased Space Assessment The committee notes that several of the Department of Defense's base closure and realignment (BRAC) recommendations were designed to relocate certain activities from leased space to Government-owned space. In the justification for some of these recommendations, the Secretary of Defense noted that implementation would reduce the Department's reliance on leased space, which historically has overall higher costs than Government-owned space and generally does not meet anti- terrorism/force protection standards. In a June 2012 report (GAO-12-709R), the Government Accountability Office noted that 2 of the recommendations to consolidate from leased space to Government-owned space were among the 14 recommendations for increasing the most in one-time costs. However, since the conclusion of the BRAC round, the committee has become aware that Department is continuing to rely on leased space. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to the congressional defense committee by March 1, 2014, on the Department's reliance on leased space to meet its mission requirements and address the following: (1) How much space does the Department lease, specifically in the National Capital Region? (2) To what extent has the Department reduced its reliance on leased space since the beginning of BRAC 2005, particularly in the National Capital Region? (3) How much is the Department spending on such leases? (4) To what extent do facilities currently being leased by Department of Defense activities comply with current anti-terrorism/force protection standards? (5) To what extent do opportunities exist to further reduce the extent to which the Department leases space, particularly in the National Capital Region? Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization As a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Department of Defense, Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory conducts research and develops technologies that address critical national security challenges. The committee notes that Lincoln Laboratory's facilities at Hanscom Air Force Base are in need of improvement and modernization in order to carry out their mission. The committee believe that the Secretary of the Air Force has existing authorities under section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to carry out improvements and modernization of the Lincoln Laboratory complex at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into discussions with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to carry out such improvements and modernizations as the Secretary determines to be appropriate. Military Heritage Sites The committee is aware of a number of military heritage sites, such as museums and exhibits that are dedicated to preserving and promoting the history of the United States Armed Forces. In many instances, such sites are operated by non- profit organizations and may be located on real estate leased from the Department of Defense or the Military Departments. The committee is further aware that section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, provides authority for the Secretary concerned to lease real property for a term of more than 5 years, and for an amount that is less than the fair market value of the lease interest, if the Secretary concerned determines that a public interest will be served as a result of the lease. The committee believes that the public interest can be well served by the operation of military heritage sites that preserve and promote the history of the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense and the military departments, when in the public interest and when such activity does not conflict with military operational requirements, to work with military heritage sites under existing real estate authorities to allow for the continued operation of such sites. Plan for Replacement of MQ-1 Aircraft of the National Guard The committee notes that the Air Force is considering a transition strategy for the Predator MQ-1 to the Reaper MQ-9. The committee supports this transition strategy and believes that the Air Force should prioritize the replacement of MQ-1s with MQ-9s at locations with an existing Formal Training Units schoolhouses, which would allow the Air Force to capitalize on existing infrastructure, trained personnel, instructor expertise, and minimize overall life cycle costs. Therefore, not later than March 1, 2014, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees a recapitalization plan for the replacement of MQ-1 aircraft with MQ-9 aircraft. The plan shall include the criteria for beddown, including both the weight and scoring of such criteria that will be given to MQ-1 wings and squadrons with co-located formal training unit schoolhouse missions. Report on Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment The committee recognizes the Army's need to responsibly decrease Active Duty end strength from 562,000 at the end of Fiscal Year 2012 to 490,000 by Fiscal Year 2020. The committee notes that as the Army considers stationing actions that will involve the inactivation of at least eight Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), the Army has undertaken a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) to examine the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of potential stationing decisions. In addition, the Army process will involve a qualitative analysis to consider factors such as training, power projection, Soldier well-being, mission expansion, and geographic distribution. In making final stationing recommendations, the committee fully expects the Army to demonstrate a business case analysis in support of each recommendation. Prior to issuing formal stationing announcements related to the Army 2020 force structure realignment, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the business case to support the stationing recommendations proposed by the Army. Space Management The committee believes that significant savings may be available in better space management on military installations. The Government Accountability Office continues to designate the Department of Defense's management of its support infrastructure as a high-risk area, in part because of issues in disposing of excess facilities. In order to identify excess or underutilized facilities, the Department needs accurate facility utilization information in its real property inventory database. This information is ultimately reported to the Federal Real Property Profile and is used by decision-makers to make asset management decisions, including disposing of unneeded federal properties or identifying opportunities for consolidation. As the Government Accountability Office recently reported, the Department does not maintain complete and accurate data concerning the utilization of its facilities. For example, the Government Accountability Office found that the Department's real property inventory database showed utilization data for less than half of the Department's total inventory and that this data was often incomplete or did not reflect the true usage rate of the facilities. Further, the Government Accountability Office recommended that the Department calculate and record complete and accurate utilization data for all facilities. The Department concurred with this recommendation and stated that it recognizes the need for further improvements in the collection and reporting of utilization data. The Department of Defense's ability to identify excess or underutilized facilities and potential opportunities for consolidation of space relies on collecting and maintaining accurate facility utilization data. The committee encourages the Department to take action to correct its collection and reporting of facility utilization data to ensure that opportunities for disposal or consolidation are identified and not lost. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the Department's efforts to improve the accuracy of its real property inventory database and the impact on consolidation activities. At a minimum, the report should address the following: (1) To what extent has the Department improved collecting and accurately maintaining facility utilization data in its real property inventory database; (2) To what extent does the Department use the data contained in its real property inventory database to identify excess facilities or potential consolidation opportunities; and (3) To what extent the Department has consolidated facilities where the Department identified consolidation opportunities. Study on Treating Defense Nuclear Facilities as Military Construction Section 2804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House of Representatives, would have mandated that certain defense nuclear facility construction projects of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) be deemed military construction projects and be carried out as such. The committee continues to be concerned about NNSA's inability to successfully execute large defense nuclear facility construction projects. Last year, NNSA informed the committee that its largest defense nuclear facility construction project, the Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project (UCRP) at the Y-12 National Security Complex, Tennessee, had encountered major problems because the process equipment would not fit within the structure of the planned building. NNSA also now intends to reduce the scope of UCRP such that only capabilities currently contained in Building 9212 at Y-12 National Security Complex will be replaced in the first phase of the project; however, the project cost is likely to increase despite the reduced scope. NNSA has indicated that the redesign required by this problem will result in a schedule delay of at least 9 months and require a new baseline cost estimate. As only the most recent example of NNSA's history of problems in designing and constructing large defense nuclear facilities on-time and on-budget, the committee continues to believe that facilities, like UCRP, can be constructed in a more cost effective and timely manner. To better understand the option and implications of designating these facilities as military construction, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 30, 2014, containing an analysis of the feasibility, costs, benefits, and risks regarding moving design and construction of defense nuclear facilities to military construction. In addition an assessment of costs, benefits, and risks, the report should also include: (1) A comparative analysis of the similarities and differences between the military construction process and NNSA's defense nuclear facility construction process, including for one-of-a-kind facilities; (2) A description of the Navy's history and experience in designing and constructing nuclear facilities, including one-of-a-kind facilities and facilities that process and store nuclear materials; and (3) One or more case studies describing the costs, benefits, and risks of carrying out a specific defense nuclear facility construction project through military construction. Update to Master Plan for Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti The committee acknowledges the strategic importance of Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, which currently supports four combatant commands as well as other government agencies. The committee believes that the national security interests of the United States are supported by the enduring presence at Camp Lemonnier and recognizes the need to make prudent investments in the infrastructure and facilities at Camp Lemonnier that are necessary to support the enduring mission. On August 31, 2012, the committee received the Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti Master Plan which outlined a $1.4 billion investment to provide infrastructure to support operational requirements and support functions at Camp Lemonnier. The committee received an update to this master plan on April 12, 2013, which reduced the total cost to $880 million. However, the committee is aware that the Government of Djibouti mandated that operations of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) cease from Camp Lemonnier, while allowing such operations to relocate to Chabelley Airfield, Djibouti. To date, the committee has received notification of approximately $13.0 million in investments made to ensure that appropriate infrastructure and equipment is in place to support the relocation of RPA operations to Chabelley Airfield. While the committee is supportive of the investments necessary to allow continuity of operations from Djibouti, the committee is concerned about the lack of clarity on the long-term plan to sustain operations and the infrastructure at this leased location and subsequent investments required to support such operations. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to keep the committee informed as alternative locations are considered to host RPA operations that were previously hosted at Camp Lemonnier and as changes are made to the short- and long-term master plans for infrastructure requirements to support operations from Djibouti. Additionally, the committee also encourages the Department of Defense to ensure that the master plan addresses energy security requirements to include energy reductions and surety of supply, in addition to steps taken to minimize exposures to toxic fumes from host-nation waste disposal sites. U.S. Air Force Space Command Infrastructure The committee recognizes the national importance of having a safe, secure, reliable, and modern space launch range infrastructure to support the national security space mission. The committee is aware that there are a number of aging facilities, with structural and technological deficiencies, that are indispensable hubs for command, telemetry, and radar support for U.S. space launch capabilities as well as warfighters down-range. The committee notes that the Air Force included military construction projects in the Future Years Defense Program, submitted as part of the Fiscal Year 2014 budget request, that would support the U.S. Air Force Space Command. However, the committee is concerned about the current condition of the aging facilities and the impact such conditions may have on the ability of U.S. Air Force Space Command to meet its mission and operational requirements until such facilities are recapitalized. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S. Air Force Space Command to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the modernization and sustainment of space launch range infrastructure that supports its mission. In addition, the briefing should address what steps are planned to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the mission readiness of U.S. Air Force Space Command until such time as the infrastructure is recapitalized. Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative The committee believes the Army's government-owned ammunition plants are critical to the nation's readiness and to equipping the U.S. Armed Forces. The committee recognizes that the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Initiative has allowed Army ammunition plants to utilize commercial firms to reduce overhead costs, resulting in cost savings and lower production costs for the Department of Defense. The committee encourages continued utilization of the ARMS Initiative to promote use of ammunition plant facilities by private firms, foster private investment in the facilities, and generate further cost savings. The committee also encourages cooperation and coordination among the Army, property managers, commercial interests, local and state agencies, and local economic development organizations to promote effective utilization of ARMS. To further promote its use, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology as well as Joint Munitions Command, to report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2014, on potential improvements to the ARMS Initiative. The report should include proposals to foster greater participation by commercial interests and local and state agencies and should consider longer lease terms in order to foster greater commercial interest in the program. Vulnerability of Defense Infrastructure to Seismic Hazards The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has existing infrastructure on installations located in seismic hazard zones and that some of this infrastructure is vulnerable to seismic hazards. The committee acknowledges that there is a need for the Department of Defense to balance investments in infrastructure that supports new missions while also recapitalizing existing infrastructure that supports current missions. When prioritizing recapitalization projects, the committee encourages the Department to address seismic vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure that supports the national security of the United States. Particular consideration should be given to buildings, depots, and other infrastructure located in seismic hazard zones that are in need of seismic upgrades to ensure the life, safety, and health of personnel as well as the continuity of operations following a seismic event. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes Section 2801--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified Military Construction The section would modify section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, and allow the threshold of the unspecified minor construction project to be adjusted based on area cost factors. This section would also increase the threshold of application associated with operation and maintenance funding for construction purposes from $750,000 to $1.0 million. Section 2802--Repeal of Requirements for Local Comparability of Room Patterns and Floor Areas for Military Family Housing and Submission of Net Floor Area Information This section would repeal section 2826 of title 10, Untied States Code, that required the Secretary concerned to acquire military family housing that is comparable in structure to family housing available in the local community. While the committee notes that the Administration has generally adopted this practice, the committee also notes that the Department should be provided latitude in the design and construction of family housing. Section 2803--Repeal of Separate Authority to Enter into Limited Partnerships with Private Developers of Housing This section would repeal the limited authority of the Department of Defense to enter into partnerships with private developers for the purpose of providing family housing construction. The committee notes that subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, provides the Department of Defense broad authority to implement an extremely successful privatization family housing program which is not being abridged by this section. Section 2804--Military Construction Standards to Reduce Vulnerability of Structures to Terrorist Attack This section would provide additional latitude to the Department of Defense (DOD) to apply local threat criteria into the design of DOD facilities. Currently, the Department of Defense uses a universal design basis threat to develop facilities criteria. Unfortunately, the universal application of a design basis threat drives increased facility costs when no credible threat exists. The committee continues to be concerned about institutional cost additions that only serve to increase the Federal cost premium. Section 2805--Treatment of Payments Received for Providing Utilities and Services in Connection with Use of Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing This provision would modify section 2872a of title 10, United States Code, and eliminate the fiscal year reimbursement loss that occurs on late fiscal year reimbursements to the military family housing account. Specifically, payments made for utilities and services would be credited to the appropriation or working capital account that is current at the time the reimbursements are received, instead of the appropriation account from which the services were originally funded. Section 2806--Repeal of Advance Notification Requirement for Use of Military Family Housing Investment Authority This section would repeal a family housing notification requirement required in section 2875 of title 10, United States Code, that has been previously assessed in the President's request. Section 2807--Additional Element for Annual Report on Military Housing Privatization Projects This section would provide additional oversight and accountability in the pursuit of military family housing privatization projects to include an assessment of litigation costs that are being pursued by the privatization partners. Section 2808--Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects in Certain Areas Outside the United States This section would amend section 2808 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108-136) and extend the Department of Defense's ability to use operation and maintenance appropriations for military construction purposes for the U.S. Central Command and Horn of Africa area until September 30, 2014. Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration Section 2811--Codification of Policies and Requirements Regarding Closure and Realignment of United States Military Installations in Foreign Countries This section would repeal section 2921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101- 510) and consolidate the requirements of overseas basing notification process in section 2687a of title 10, Untied States Code. This section would also remove a redundant reporting requirement associated with the proposed residual value of foreign military closure determinations. Subtitle C--Energy Security Section 2821--Continuation of Limitation on Use of Funds for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or Platinum Certification This section would continue the prohibition on the use of funds for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design gold or platinum certifications for fiscal year 2014, set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee notes that the Department of Defense has met two of the three requirements to include submission of a report regarding the different design standards and a new high performance and sustainable building unified facilities criteria. The committee looks forward to receiving the updated policy guidance that prescribes building design and certification standards that specifically address energy- and water-efficient standards and sustainable design attributes for military construction based on the cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, total ownership costs, and demonstrated payback applied by specific geographic location and local circumstances to ensure maximum savings. Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment Section 2831--Change From Previous Calendar Year to Previous Fiscal Year for Period Covered by Annual Report of Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment This section would change the annual inspectors general reporting requirement from the end of each calendar year to the end of the fiscal year. Section 2832--Repeal of Certain Restrictions on Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region This section would repeal section 2832 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-239). Subtitle E--Land Conveyances Section 2841--Real Property Acquisition, Naval Base Ventura County, California This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to terminate the outlease and acquire certain family housing improvements at Naval Base Ventura County, California. This section would also authorize the continued use of the housing as authorized by section 2835 and section 2835a of title 10, United States Code, pending funding and execution of a Navy project to permanently convert the housing to an alternative use. Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Former Oxnard Air Force Base, Ventura County, California This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, without consideration, the Oxnard Air Force Base at Ventura, California, to Ventura County for public purposes. Section 2843--Land Conveyance, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey certain properties and improvements at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Pennsylvania, for fair market value. Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Camp Williams, Utah This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 420 acres to the State of Utah for the purpose of permitting the Utah National Guard to use the conveyed land for military use. Section 2845--Conveyance, Air National Guard Radar Site, Francis Peak, Wasatch Mountains, Utah This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, without consideration, certain Air National Guard facilities at Francis Peak, Utah, for purposes of permitting the State to use the structures to support emergency public safety communications. This authority shall expire on September 30, 2014, or enactment of an act authorizing military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. Section 2846--Land Conveyance, Former Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey certain properties at Fort Monroe, Virginia, to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Section 2847--Land Conveyance, Mifflin County United States Army Reserve Center, Lewistown, Pennsylvania This section would convey, without consideration, to Derry Township, Pennsylvania, certain properties for the purpose of permitting the Township to use these properties for public purposes. Subtitle F--Other Matters Section 2861--Repeal of Annual Economic Adjustment Committee Reporting Requirement This section would repeal an annual economic adjustment committee report required by section 4004 of the Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, and Stabilization Act of 1990 (division D of Public Law 101-510). Section 2862--Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies This section would name the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies at Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ``Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies'', and would make other conforming changes. Section 2863--Redesignation of the Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences as the Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing This section would rename the Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, as the ``Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing'', and would make other conforming changes. Section 2864--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, Ohio This section would modify the name of the John W. Berry, Sr. Wright Brothers Aviation Center to the John W. Berry, Sr. Wright Brothers National Museum, Dayton, Ohio. Section 2865--Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial in Riverside, California This section would authorize a memorial to members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross The memorial is located at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California, and would hereby be designated as the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial. TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained no funds for Overseas Contingency Activity military construction related activities. The committee recommends authorization of $247,400,000 for Overseas Contingency Activity military construction activities. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Project This section would contain the list of certain authorized Army construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts include: Seaside Galley, $12.0 million; High Value Detainee Facility, $52.0 million; Medical Support Facilities, $11.8 million; Communications Network Facility, $11.6 million; Barracks (496 Persons), $94.0 million; and Barracks (352 Persons), $66.0 million. These projects represent a binding list of the specific projects authorized at this location. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide a brief to the congressional defense committees on infrastructure costs associated with continued detention operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and would require the President to provide a plan relating to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, future terrorist captures, and detainees held at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan. TITLE XXX--MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS TO SUPPORT READINESS AND SECURITY LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana Section 3001--Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Lands for Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana This section would withdraw the lands described at Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana, for use by the Department of the Army. Section 3002--Management of Withdrawn and Reserved Lands This section would require the Secretary of the Army to manage the lands withdrawn in section 3001 in accordance with the limitations and restrictions of section. Section 3003--Special Rules Governing Minerals Management This section would establish additional rules governing mineral management at Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana. Section 3004--Grazing This section would require the Secretary of the Interior to continue and manage grazing permits and leases. The Secretary of the Interior, with the agreement of the Secretary of the Army, may delegate such authority to the Secretary of the Army. Section 3005--Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation This section would terminate the land withdrawal authorized in this subtitle on March 31, 2039. Section 3006--Payments in Lieu of Taxes This section would authorize the lands withdrawn in section 3001 to remain entitlement land under section 6901 of title 31, United States Code. Section 3007--Hunting, Fishing and Trapping This section would require hunting, fishing and trapping on the lands withdrawn in section 3001 to be conducted in accordance with section 2671 of title 10, United States Code. Section 3008--Water Rights This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the withdrawal authorized in section 3001. Section 3009--Brush and Range Fire Prevention and Suppression This section would require the Secretary of the Army to take necessary precautions to prevent, and actions to suppress, brush and range fires occurring as a result of military activities on the lands withdrawn by section 3001. Section 3010--On-Going Decontamination This section would require the Secretary of the Army to maintain a program of decontamination on the withdrawn land provided by section 3001. Section 3011--Application for Renewal of a Withdrawal and Reservation This section would require the Secretary of the Army to notify the Secretary of the Interior 5 years before the termination of the withdrawal. The Secretary of the Army shall provide to the Secretary of the Interior notice as to the Army's intent to continue defense related functions after the term of the withdrawal. Section 3012--Limitation on Subsequent Availability of Lands for Appropriation This section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 3001 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws. Section 3013--Relinquishment This section would provide authority and procedures for the Secretary of the Army to relinquish any or all of the lands withdrawn or reserved authorized in section 3001. Subtitle B--White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico Section 3021--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico This section would transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain lands located in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army. Section 3022--Water Rights This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3021. Section 3023--Withdrawal This section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 3021 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws so long as the lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army. Subtitle C--Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California Section 3031--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California This section would transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain lands located in Inyo, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, California, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy. Section 3032--Water Rights This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3031. Section 3033--Withdrawal This section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 3031 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws so long as the lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. Subtitle D--Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California Section 3041--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California This section would transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain lands located in Imperial and Riverside Counties, California, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy. Section 3042--Management and Use of Transferred Land This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to use the lands transferred in section 3041 for military purposes. This section would also limit any diminution of these lands as critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Finally, this section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 3041 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws so long as the lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. Section 3043--Realignment of Range Boundary and Related Transfer of Title This section would authorize the realignment of the range boundary to ensure that the northwestern boundary of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range shall be realigned to the edge of the Bradshaw trail so that the trail remains entirely under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to any transfer provided by this section. Section 3044--Effect of Termination of Military Use This section would require that if the Secretary of the Navy determines that there is no longer a military need for the lands transferred by section 3041, the Secretary of the Navy shall assess the level of contamination and determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, whether decontamination is practical and economically feasible. If the Secretary of the Navy determines that decontamination is practical, the Secretary of the Navy shall provide funds for such decontamination. Section 3045--Temporary Extension of Existing Withdrawal Period This section would find that notwithstanding subsection (a) of section 806 of the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflight Act of 1994 (title VIII of Public Law 103-433), the withdrawal and reservation of land transferred under section 3041 shall not terminate until the date on which the land transfer required by section 3041 is executed. Section 3046--Water Rights This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3041. Subtitle E--Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California Section 3051--Designation of Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area This section would designate certain lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior in San Bernardino County, California, as the ``Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area''. This section would further withdraw the lands designated in this section from all forms of appropriation under public land laws. Section 3052--Limited Biannual Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms Use of Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide for the Secretary of the Navy's use of the Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area twice in each calendar year for up to a total of 60 days per year for certain purposes. Any agreement for the military use of the Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area shall terminate not later than March 31, 2039. Section 3053--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Southern Study Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California This section would transfer certain lands in San Bernardino County, California, as generally depicted as the ``Southern Study Area'' to be transferred from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy for military purposes. Section 3054--Water Rights This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3051. Subtitle F--Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada Section 3061--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada This section would transfer certain lands in Churchill County, Nevada, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy for military purposes. Section 3062--Water Rights This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3061. Section 3063--Withdrawal This section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 3031 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws so long as the lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS OVERVIEW The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $17.8 billion for atomic energy defense activities. The committee recommends $17.6 billion, a decrease of $146.0 million to the budget request. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST National Nuclear Security Administration Overview The budget request contained $11.7 billion for the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends $11.9 billion, an increase of $212.0 million to the budget request. Weapons Activities Advanced manufacturing within the nuclear security enterprise The committee notes the recent progress in advanced manufacturing technologies in the commercial sector and the potential to adapt these methods for use by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). These technologies have the potential to reduce the cost, schedule, and risk for NNSA's warhead life extension programs and other national security programs. Technologies such as additive manufacturing may improve the manufacturability of components, reduce time required between design and production of components, and reduce waste and production footprint. However, the committee is aware that new manufacturing technologies may face significant hurdles before their products can be certified for use in the nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee also is concerned that advanced manufacturing technologies could create proliferation challenges. The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to develop a roadmap for developing the opportunities and addressing the challenges of advanced manufacturing technologies, and to provide a briefing on the roadmap to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2014. The plan should include identification of the following: (1) Near-term and long-term advanced manufacturing processes that could be further developed and adapted for NNSA's mission; (2) Steps that must be taken to scale-up advanced manufacturing technologies to support NNSA production requirements; (3) Potential cost savings and reductions in waste, including toxic waste, floor space requirements, and production time that may be possible from the use of advanced manufacturing technologies; (4) Timelines associated with developing and scaling up advanced manufacturing technologies; (5) Challenges related to certification for use in the stockpile of products made through advanced manufacturing technologies, including timelines for when such certification may be possible; and (6) Collaboration opportunities related to advanced manufacturing among the production plants and laboratories of the nuclear security enterprise, as well as private industry and other Government agencies. Finally, the briefing should also provide an assessment of the security and proliferation implications of these new technologies, including implications for detection of illicit uses and steps that should be taken to protect or limit access to sensitive technologies. Budget tables for NNSA Production Office As is traditional practice, the fiscal year 2014 budget request submission for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) contained ``Laboratory Tables'' and ``State Tables'' that are intended to describe, respectively, the funding each DOE facility would receive and the funding each State would receive under the budget request. Due to the recent creation of the NNSA Production Office (NPO), which oversees both the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, and the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, these budget tables are unclear. The Laboratory Tables combine the amounts for Pantex and Y-12 under the NPO and do not provide any information regarding how much funding would be provided to each of these facilities. Furthermore, the State Tables combine the nearly $1.8 billion in total funding for Pantex and Y-12 into a single entry called ``Undesignated State.'' This lack of clarity hinders the committee's ability to understand the budget request in detail. The committee encourages the Secretary of Energy to include facility-specific detail for Pantex and Y-12 in future budget submissions. Cyber security The budget request contained $148.4 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration's Chief Information Officer (NCIO) Activities. The NCIO program includes cyber security efforts at NNSA Headquarters, field offices, and the facilities of the nuclear security enterprise. Like other agencies of the federal government, NNSA has been striving to defend against cyber security threats of increasing quantity and sophistication. The committee is concerned that the request for NCIO Activities does not reflect the severity of this threat, and the committee is concerned that NNSA is actually decreasing the cyber security funds provided to the management and operating contractors who run its facilities and have operational responsibility for protecting their computer networks. Therefore, the committee recommends $170.9 million for NCIO Activities, an increase of $22.5 million. The committee expects this funding would be distributed in a risk-based manner across all NNSA elements and the facilities of the nuclear security enterprise. Clarification of congressional intent regarding national security laboratories The committee believes that national security relies upon a diverse science and technology base that is then leveraged and applied to a wide range of problems. This includes weapons development, but also signature detection and analysis, forensics and attribution, data analysis, nonproliferation, infrastructure protection, cyber security, and many others. In the United States, many of these capabilities are stewarded and provided by a broad range of national laboratories in a way that leverages the investments of many federal agencies responsible for security, energy, and fundamental science missions. The committee notes that section 3131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) created a statutory definition for ``national security laboratory'' in section 4002 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501). The definition includes the three laboratories of the National Nuclear Security Administration. However, the committee clarifies that the intent of this definition was not to exclude other national laboratories or defense laboratories from pursuing or engaging in national security work. The committee believes the capabilities of all Federal laboratories should be leveraged to support national security wherever appropriate, with particular focus on leveraging unique capabilities while avoiding unnecessary duplication and loss of critical capabilities. Deferred maintenance in the nuclear security enterprise The budget request contained $1.7 billion for Site Stewardship, which includes $433.8 million for Enterprise Infrastructure-Sustainment. These funds provide for maintenance activities at mission essential facilities, recapitalization of aging and obsolete infrastructure, and efforts to address deferred maintenance. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) was established in fiscal year 2002 to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance that had accumulated across the facilities of the nuclear security enterprise. In February 2013, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced the completion of the FIRP and highlighted that, during the course of the program, over 800 separate projects had been executed and a total of $900 million in deferred maintenance had been eliminated. With the termination of FIRP and the numerous high-priority programs at the NNSA, the committee is concerned that the backlog of deferred maintenance will again accumulate. The committee encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security to remain vigilant and request resources as needed to ensure NNSA's facilities and infrastructure are modern and well- maintained. To ensure full transparency, the committee also encourages the Administrator to include, as part of future budget requests, an estimate of the deferred maintenance backlog across the enterprise. The committee recommends $498.9 million for Enterprise Infrastructure-Sustainment, an increase of $65.1 million to the budget request, to support continued reduction of deferred maintenance across the enterprise. Directed Stockpile Work The budget request contained $2.4 billion for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW). DSW encompasses a variety of activities related to the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) core mission of nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and management, including life extension programs and major alterations, stockpile surveillance and sustainment, testing and experiments, manufacturing and delivery of limited life components, and weapons dismantlement and disposition. Within DSW, the budget request contained $1.0 billion for life extension programs and major alterations to nuclear weapons in the enduring stockpile. The committee notes that the Acting Administrator for Nuclear Security has testified that the continuing effects of budget cuts, including those resulting from the Budget Control Act, may result in delays to schedules for several critical DSW programs, including the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) and the W78/88-1 LEP. The committee also notes that NNSA has budgeted for $106.8 million in ``efficiencies'' within DSW. If these efficiencies are not achieved, significant impacts to critical DSW programs will likely result. The committee recommends $2.6 billion for DSW, an increase of $125.9 million to the budget request. This includes $581.0 million for the B61 LEP, an increase of $44.0 million, and $78.3 million, an increase of $5.6 million, to the W78/88-1 LEP to reduce risk and prevent schedule slips in these critical programs. This also includes $245.1 million for the W76 LEP, an increase of $9.7 million, to ensure NNSA delivers the full, previously-agreed quantity of W76-1 warheads to the Navy in fiscal year 2014. Finally, this also includes $970.8 million for Stockpile Services, an increase of $60.6 million, to improve capabilities that support the entire stockpile, particularly research and development in support of certification and safety and plutonium sustainment activities. Within Stockpile Services, $351.0 million is provided to Production Support, an increase of $29.6 million, to ensure sufficient production capacity is available to support the B61 and W76 LEPs. Exascale computing To maintain our economic and national security, the committee believes that the United States must continue to be at the forefront of high-performance computing technology. The committee believes that the U.S. must continue public and private efforts to develop exascale computing systems that would represent a dramatic leap-forward in high performance computing technology. Such computers would not only help ensure the long-term viability of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of nuclear explosive testing, but would also support important technology innovation for the broader economy. A robust research and development program coordinated among the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and key industry partners is critical to successfully fielding exascale computers. Recent progress towards exascale computing is encouraging, but significant technical challenges remain. The committee encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Secretary of Energy to prioritize exascale computing development efforts within its high performance computing portfolio. Ignition and budget prioritization The committee understands that the National Ignition Campaign concluded in September 2012 without having achieved its primary goal of creating fusion ignition in a laboratory environment. The committee continues to support efforts to achieve ignition, but believes such efforts must become a lower priority when the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is faced with such large budget needs in core Directed Stockpile Work and Nuclear Programs. The committee is therefore supportive of NNSA's efforts in fiscal year 2013 and the budget request for fiscal year 2014 to reorient funding for ignition experiments towards experiments and activities more directly supporting the nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee believes NNSA must set priorities within its budget and continues to believe that the top priority of the Administrator must be sustaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile, delivering life extension programs on schedules that meet military requirements, and modernizing the supporting infrastructure. Livermore valley open campus The committee understands that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has endorsed the development of the Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC), which utilizes adjoining portions of the California site of Sandia National Laboratories and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to enable mission-driven research and development collaboration with public and private sector partners. The LVOC research activities, first initiated in fiscal year 2011, enhance core laboratory science and engineering capabilities by advancing programs in high performance computing, energy security, and cyber security. The committee encourages the NNSA to consider facilitating continued development of the LVOC by utilizing its existing authorities to lease land within the LVOC to enable public/private partnerships to construct new facilities. However, the committee cautions that the LVOC should complement, and not distract from, NNSA's core mission, that limited NNSA resources must be applied judiciously to any public/private partnerships, and that appropriate steps be taken to ensure security of sensitive information. Trilateral cooperation The committee notes that there may be opportunities to strengthen trilateral cooperation between the United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic on nuclear stockpile stewardship and nuclear nonproliferation goals. These efforts could increase scientific collaboration and lead to cost-savings and efficiencies in a budget-constrained environment. The committee therefore encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to consider specific technical, scientific, and policy areas that could benefit from further cooperation; assess regulatory constraints that relate to such cooperation; and identify areas in which cooperation should be limited to protect sensitive information. The committee encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security to keep the congressional defense committees informed of these considerations. Risks within long-term schedule for life extension programs The committee notes the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) ambitious schedule for performance of nuclear weapons Life Extension Programs (LEP), including plans to conduct development or production of up to five LEPs concurrently during fiscal year 2023 and plans to conduct at least three LEPs concurrently during the late-2020s. Such LEPs would be conducted while NNSA continues efforts to meet military requirements for limited lifetime component exchanges and while also managing several very large defense nuclear facility construction projects. The committee also notes the track record of significant technical challenges, cost increases, and schedule delays that have plagued NNSA's major programs. In 2012, NNSA's estimated cost of the B61 LEP increased to $7.9 billion. In a September 2012 report, the Department of Energy Inspector General found that the W76 LEP had ``experienced significant delays in startup and in achieving production goals,'' and ``NNSA may be unable to complete the W76 LEP within established scope, cost and schedule parameters, unless it adopts a more effective approach to reducing unit costs.'' The committee is therefore concerned about the potential risks within the long-term schedule for LEPs. In particular, the committee is concerned regarding how potential delays or cost increases within the B61 LEP may affect other LEPs planned for the 2020s and 2030s. The committee directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a joint briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than January 15, 2014, on the risks within the long-term schedule for LEPs, including the impacts to the long-term plan of potential unforeseen technical challenges, schedule delays, and cost increases in near-term LEPs. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Follow-on to Global Threat Reduction Initiative The committee recognizes the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Global Threat Reduction Initiative's (GTRI) progress to secure and remove nuclear weapons-usable material in both foreign countries and the United States. The committee notes the central role this program has played in the President's plan to secure all vulnerable nuclear weapons- usable material worldwide and commends the commitments made by foreign leaders at the 2010 and 2012 Nuclear Security Summits to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. The committee notes that calendar year 2013 marks the end of this 4-year plan and the beginning of the phasing out of the program. However, the committee understands that significant quantities of highly- enriched uranium (HEU) remain in foreign countries and potentially at risk of theft or diversion. The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a plan to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2014, to complete efforts to remove and secure vulnerable HEU worldwide. This plan should include: (1) Analysis detailing the quantity and status of HEU that has not been secured or removed; (2) An assessment of the threat or risks of this HEU being stolen or diverted; (3) An assessment of the level of vulnerability of such material; (4) Potential follow-on efforts to the GTRI's efforts to secure or remove this material; a cost-benefit analysis for such potential follow-on efforts; (5) An estimation of the costs of such efforts that would be borne by the United States, allied countries, and partner countries; (6) An assessment of the priority of such efforts as compared to other NNSA missions, including a description of the opportunity costs on other NNSA missions inherent with pursuing such efforts; and (7) An assessment of material that cannot be accessed, removed, or secured and the threats to such material. Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility analysis While the Committee is concerned with the continuing escalating costs associated the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication (MOX) Facility, the budget request may not actually reduce costs to the taxpayer and will likely delay the disposition of 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium. Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to study ways to achieve cost savings within the MOX program. This study should analyze potential additional international partners and the potential for achieving greater economic efficiencies by designating additional supplies of surplus plutonium for disposition through the MOX facility. The completed study should be submitted to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2014. Nonproliferation and arms control verification technology research and development The committee notes the importance of continuing sound investments in technology research and development (R&D) to support detection and verification efforts for nonproliferation and arms control regimes. The committee is concerned that the level of investment and a clear strategic plan to sustain and develop national capabilities to support current and long-term nonproliferation goals may not be sufficient to effectively address future threats and opportunities. Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of Nuclear Security, in consultation with the relevant national laboratories and the Director of National Intelligence, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the national research agenda to develop technologies, responsive to near- and long-term requirements, including technologies applicable to safeguards, to detect state and non-state efforts to develop or acquire nuclear devices or weapons-usable nuclear materials. The report should also include verification technologies, including non- traditional technologies, that need to be developed, across the near- and long-term, to support future arms control efforts including nuclear reductions to lower force levels, reductions of strategic or non-strategic nuclear forces, or of deployed or non-deployed warhead limitations. Naval Reactors Fissile material stockpiles The committee is mindful that the Director, Naval Reactors has an enduring requirement for highly enriched uranium for their mission to provide nuclear reactors to the U.S. Navy. The committee also notes that a key argument for maintaining a domestic enrichment capability is to ensure a sustainable stockpile of highly enriched uranium for the nuclear Navy mission. The Department of Energy is undertaking a program to provide such a domestic enrichment capability at the present time. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Naval Reactors to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by August 31, 2013, on the projected availability of highly enriched uranium and very highly enriched uranium for naval nuclear reactors and the date at which new production or enrichment of highly and very highly enriched uranium is required to support naval nuclear reactors for the long-term future. Naval Reactors The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion efforts, including reactor plant technology design and development, reactor plant operation and maintenance, and reactor retirement and disposal. The program ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers that represent over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants. The budget request contained $1.2 billion for Naval Reactors for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends $1.2 billion, the amount of the budget request. Office of the Administrator Office of Infrastructure and Operations In March 2012, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) created the Office of Infrastructure and Operations, headed by a new Associate Administrator, and realigned all NNSA site offices to report to this new entity rather than the Office of Defense Programs. This realignment was intended to provide Defense Programs the ability to focus more directly on its mission while Infrastructure and Operations provides the basic management and functions required to keep NNSA facilities open and operating. The realignment also provides a more direct link between the site offices (now renamed ``field offices'') and the NNSA Administrator. With the fiscal year 2014 budget request, NNSA also proposes to divide the former Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities account into two new accounts: (1) Nuclear Programs, and (2) Site Stewardship. NNSA has proposed the new Site Stewardship funding to be managed by the Office of Infrastructure and Operations, while Nuclear Programs remains with the Office of Defense Programs. The committee understands the intent of this realignment, but is concerned about NNSA's ability to execute it efficiently and effectively. Based on past experiences at the Department of Energy and NNSA, creation of a new office can lead to increased bureaucracy, confused roles and responsibilities, and poor coordination on priorities and programs. The committee expects the Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Operations to work closely with all elements of NNSA to ensure appropriate priorities are set, timely and efficient decisionmaking occurs, roles and responsibilities are clear, and processes are streamlined. The committee will continue its oversight of this new structure. Plan and roadmap to address security problems In response to the security incident that occurred at the Y-12 National Security Complex on July 28, 2012, the committee conducted several briefings and hearings to examine the management, governance, oversight, and cultural failures within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) that enabled the incident to take place. Over the past several decades, many independent and objective studies have been conducted that have highlighted the longstanding problems at NNSA and DOE that led directly to the Y-12 incident and other security failures before it. Many of these studies have found the same problems and recommended strikingly similar solutions. The Independent NNSA Security Review (known as the ``Mies Panel'') highlighted this fact in 2005, stating that, ``. . . past studies and reviews of DOE/ NNSA security have reached similar findings regarding the cultural, personnel, organizational, policy and procedural challenges that exist within DOE and NNSA. Many of these issues are not new; many continue to exist because of a lack of clear accountability, excessive bureaucracy, organizational stovepipes, lack of collaboration, and unwieldy, cumbersome processes. Robust, formal mechanisms to evaluate findings, assess underlying root causes, analyze alternative courses of action, formulate appropriate corrective action, gain approval, and effectively implement change are weak to non-existent within DOE/NNSA.'' The committee continues to be concerned with the failure to implement meaningful and effective changes when the problems and possible solutions have been so thoroughly studied. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare and submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, by September 30, 2013, on the Department's plan to address the longstanding, well-documented problems that contributed to the Y-12 security failure. The report should contain at least three major components: (1) An explicit examination of studies conducted in the past 15 years, including the reviews performed following the Y-12 intrusion, that have assessed security problems within the nuclear enterprise and a summary of their findings and recommendations as well as the actions the Department has taken or will take to resolve them. This should take the form of a security roadmap, as recommended in the Task Force Report on the Assessment of NNSA Federal Organization and Oversight of Security Operations, that, ``consolidates recommendations, articulates a clear vision of where the security program is going, . . . charts a path forward,'' and provides evidence that, ``the solutions [are] enduring so that they are not again written up in the next report.'' (2) A clear statement of the authorities, roles, responsibilities, budget authority, and chain of command regarding security within all NNSA organizations with security responsibilities and any DOE organizations that affect NNSA security. (3) Measures to improve oversight and increase accountability of both contractors and Federal officials. Reprogramming Procedure and Funding Control Levels The committee requests that the Department of Energy follow the same procedures for reprogramming requests and approvals as the Department of Defense. Requesting prior approval for reprogramming requests rather than adhering to a notice and wait procedure can streamline the process for approval and execution. The committee would like to work with and support the emergent execution year requirements of the Department of Energy, and will work to respond to reprogramming requests in an efficient manner. In the justification books accompanying the fiscal year 2014 budget request, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) proposes funding control levels at the subprogram level, rather than the activity level. The committee understands NNSA executes a wide range of nuclear security programs, and that the proposed control levels may provide greater flexibility, agility, and efficiency for program management. However, the committee is concerned that NNSA has not yet demonstrated sufficient program management effectiveness to warrant such leeway from Congress. Furthermore, the scope of work NNSA must accomplish in the next decade is significantly larger than in the past. In addition, the committee believes it is important to separate the maintenance, support, and operations funding lines and maintain those as separate control levels to reduce the risk of maintenance funds being diverted to operations, particularly as many facilities across the nuclear enterprise are decades-old. The committee is concerned that this proposal for higher- level control levels was made without prior discussion with the committee and without sufficient justification and transparency. Therefore, the committee clarifies that the control levels for the NNSA authorization are those authorized by section 3101 of this Act. The committee encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in coordination with the White House Office of Management and Budget, to consult closely with Congress before any future changes to control levels are proposed. Environmental and Other Defense Activities Overview The budget request contained $6.1 billion for environmental and other defense activities for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends $5.7 billion, a decrease of $358.0 million to the budget request. Defense Environmental Cleanup Environmental Management Technology Development Program The budget request contained $24.1 million for the technology development program of the Office of Environmental Management. This program is focused on resolving technical challenges and developing transformational technology solutions to address the highest priority needs of the environmental remediation program. Applied engineering and research to create and demonstrate high-risk, high-payoff technologies are included in this program. Technologies developed by this program have already been shown to significantly reduce long-term costs, improve waste processing throughput, and improve schedules for cleanup activities. Because the environmental cleanup program as a whole is expected to require at least an additional $200.0 billion and continue into the 2060s, small amounts of money invested now on technology and process improvements can lead to major savings in the future. The committee supports this program and encourages the Office of Environmental Management to develop and communicate potential return on investment figures for each subprogram. The committee recommends $34.1 million, an increase of $10.0 million, for the technology development program. Transuranic Wastes at Hanford Tank Farms The committee is aware that on March 11, 2013, the Department of Energy announced its preferred alternative to characterize and certify appropriate mixed transuranic (TRU) waste at the Hanford Site's Tank Farms and ultimately dispose of such waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. The Department has identified up to 3.1 million gallons of potential mixed TRU waste in the Tank Farms, equivalent to approximately 5.6 percent of the total waste volume in the tanks, that would be assessed for possible disposal at WIPP. Currently, all Tank Farm waste is managed as high-level waste. The committee is aware that although the amount of waste that may potentially be classified as mixed TRU is a small fraction of the total 56 million gallons of waste in the Tank Farms, efforts to dispose of this small fraction at WIPP may result in significant cost savings in the long-term. Such disposal may also enable the Department of Energy to demonstrate small but appreciable progress on cleaning up a major Cold War legacy site and removing waste from the State of Washington. However, the committee notes stakeholder concerns about the process of classifying tank waste as TRU waste, as well as the technical and legal obstacles to doing so. Such disposal, if viable and cost-effective, must adhere to a rigorous and transparent process based on sound science in determining and certifying potential mixed TRU waste, be based on a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the investments needed to certify and dispose of TRU waste versus immobilization through vitrification, and be adequately coordinated with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and appropriate agencies in the State of Washington and the State of New Mexico. The committee encourages the Department of Energy to fully investigate this possible approach to disposal and ensure that all regulatory requirements are met and appropriate permits are in place before retrieval of tank waste is initiated. Throughout this process, the committee expects the Department to keep the appropriate congressional committees fully informed of its plans. Other Defense Activities Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security Program The Department of Energy budget request proposes to move funding for the Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security from Other Defense Activities to Nuclear Energy programs. This move is intended to provide the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy more direct control over the safeguards and security program at a facility for which the Assistant Secretary has responsibility. The committee is supportive of this realignment, and views it as a sensible management practice. However, the committee cautions the Department that this move should not be viewed as a precedent for transferring defense funding to energy programs. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration This section would authorize appropriations for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2014, including funds for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and the Office of the Administrator, at the levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. This section would also authorize several new plant projects for the National Nuclear Security Administration. Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup This section would authorize appropriations for defense environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2014, at the levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. Section 3103--Other Defense Activities This section would authorize appropriations for other defense activities for fiscal year 2014, including funds for Health, Safety, and Security, the Office of Legacy Management, and Nuclear Energy, at the funds identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance This section would authorize appropriations for energy security and assurance programs for fiscal year 2014, at the levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations Section 3111--Clarification of Principles of National Nuclear Security Administration This section would amend section 3211 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401) to clarify the set of principles with which the National Nuclear Security Administration must carry out its operations and activities. Specifically, this section would add the requirement that all operations and activities of the Administration be conducted consistent with the principle of ``ensuring the security of the nuclear weapons, nuclear material, and classified information in the custody of the Administration.'' Section 3112--Termination of Department of Energy Employees to Protect National Security This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to terminate an employee of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) or any element of the Department of Energy that involves nuclear security if the Secretary determines the employee acted in a manner that endangers the security of special nuclear material or classified information. To exercise such authority, the Secretary would have to consider the termination to be in the interests of the United States and determine that the termination procedures prescribed by other provisions of law cannot be invoked in a manner that the Secretary considers consistent with national security. This section would also require the Secretary, to the extent the interests of national security permit, to notify an employee whose employment is terminated under this section of the reasons for the termination. The terminated employee would then be allowed 30 days to submit statements or affidavits to the Secretary to show why the employee should be restored to duty. If such statements and affidavits are submitted, the Secretary would be required to provide a written response to the employee and may, if the Secretary chooses, restore the employment of the employee. A decision by the Secretary to terminate employment of an employee under this section would be final and would not be able to be appealed, though such termination would not affect the right of the employee to seek or accept employment with any other department or agency of the United States if that employee is declared eligible for such employment by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The authority under this section would reside only with the Secretary, without delegation. The committee understands that several Federal employees have been reassigned or allowed to retire in response to the July 2012, security breach at the Y-12 National Security Complex. However, no Federal employees have been terminated. Senior officials from the Department of Energy have indicated to the committee that Federal employment rules did not enable terminations in this case. The committee believes that strong accountability actions are required in response to egregious security problems; this section would provide the Secretary of Energy the authority needed to ensure strong accountability actions are possible. The committee notes that this authority would reside only with the Secretary (without delegation) and encourages the Secretary to make use of the authority only in instances where the most robust accountability is needed. The committee notes the similar existing statutory authority contained in section 1609 of title 10, United States Code, which enables the Secretary of Defense to terminate defense intelligence employees. Section 3113--Modification of Independent Cost Estimates on Life Extension Programs and New Nuclear Facilities This section would amend section 4217 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2537) to require that any independent cost estimate carried out pursuant to section 4217 be conducted by the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE). The Director would be authorized to delegate carrying out such cost estimates to other elements of the Department of Defense. This section would also provide the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security and acting through the Director of CAPE, the authority to conduct an independent cost assessment of any initiative or program of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that is estimated to cost more than $500.0 million. This section would also require the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Administrator, to request an independent review of each guidance issued for the analysis of alternatives for each nuclear weapon system undergoing life extension and each new nuclear facility of the nuclear security enterprise as well as the results of such analysis of alternatives. The Secretary of Energy, acting through the Administrator, would be required to submit the results of any such analysis to the Nuclear Weapons Council and the congressional defense committees. The independent review would be required to be conducted by either the Director of CAPE, an organization selected by the Director of CAPE, or the JASON Defense Advisory Panel. The requirement for independent reviews would expire on the date that is three years after the date of the enactment of this Act. Finally, this section would express the sense of Congress that Congress encourages the Administrator and the Nuclear Weapons Council to follow the results of the analysis of alternatives of a life extension program or a defense nuclear facility construction project when selecting a final option. Section 3114--Plan for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposition of Tank Farm Waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation This section would require the Secretary of Energy to submit a comprehensive plan through 2025 to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, for the safe and effective retrieval, treatment, and disposition of nuclear waste contained in the Tank Farms of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington. The plan would be required to include: (1) a list of all requirements, assumptions, and criteria needed to design, construct, and operate the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) and any required infrastructure or facilities at the Hanford Tank Farms; (2) a schedule of activities, construction, and operations at the Tank Farms and the WTP through 2025 in order to carry out the safe and effective retrieval, treatment, and disposition of nuclear waste in the Tank Farms; (3) actions required to accelerate, to the extent possible, retrieval and treatment of lower-risk, low-activity waste while continuing efforts to accelerate resolution of technical challenges associated with higher-risk, high-activity waste; and (4) a description of how adequate protection will be provided to workers and the public under the plan and how any new science and technical information, not available prior to development of the plan or available prior to March 2014, will be incorporated into the plan. This section would also require that the Secretary make a determination whether each requirement, assumption, and criterion identified in the plan is finalized and will be used to inform planning, design, construction, and operations. For each requirement, assumption, or criterion that the Secretary cannot make a finalized determination, the Secretary would be required to include in the plan: (1) a description of the requirement, assumption, or criterion; (2) a list of activities required for the Secretary to make a finalized determination; and (3) the date on which the Secretary anticipates making a finalized determination. Once a finalized determination is made, the Secretary would be required to notify the congressional defense committees. This section would authorize the Secretary (without delegation) to change a finalized determination made pursuant to this section. If such a change will have a material effect on any aspect of the schedule or cost of the WTP project, the Secretary would be required to promptly notify the congressional defense committees. Finally, the Secretary would be required to make changes to a requirement, assumption, or criterion if adequate protection cannot be provided without such change. In carrying out this section, the committee expects the Secretary to leverage the national laboratories to help resolve outstanding technical challenges. Section 3115--Enhanced Procurement Authority to Manage Supply Chain Risk This section would provide the Secretary of Energy with the authority to take certain actions with regard to the protection of the supply chain of the Department of Energy. This authority would replicate the authority provided to the Department of Defense in section 806 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) and to the intelligence community in section 309 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-87). Section 3116--Limitation on Availability of Funds for National Nuclear Security Administration This section would limit the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) such that $139.5 million may not be obligated or expended until the Administrator for Nuclear Security submits to the congressional defense committees a detailed plan to achieve certain planned efficiencies and written certification that the planned efficiencies will be achieved. If the Administrator does not submit the plan or is unable to certify within 60 days of the date of the enactment of this Act that the efficiencies will be achieved, the Administrator would be required to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the amount of planned efficiencies that will not be realized and any effects caused by planned but unrealized efficiencies in the Directed Stockpile Work and Nuclear Programs accounts. The limitation of funds for NNSA would not apply to funds authorized to be appropriated for Directed Stockpile Work, Nuclear Programs, or Naval Reactors. Finally, the limitation on obligation of funds would not affect the authority of the Secretary of Energy to reprogram or transfer funding under sections 4702, 4705, and 4711 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2742, 2745, and 2751). The committee notes that the fiscal year 2014 budget request justification materials for NNSA assume $106.8 million in Directed Stockpile Work and $32.7 million in Nuclear Programs will be saved through, ``management efficiency and workforce restructuring reductions.'' The NNSA anticipates utilizing the savings from these efficiencies to support nuclear modernization work in these programs. However, the committee is concerned that NNSA does not have a clear plan for achieving these efficiencies. Furthermore, if these efficiencies are not achieved, critical nuclear modernization programs will be forced to reduce scope or slip schedules. Therefore, the committee recommends this section to ensure a detailed plan is submitted to Congress and that nuclear modernization programs remain on track should the expected efficiencies not be realized. If the efficiencies are not realized, the committee encourages the Secretary to propose a transfer of funds from lower priority programs to support the nuclear modernization efforts at the core of Directed Stockpile Work and Nuclear Programs. Section 3117--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the Administrator This section would limit the availability of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of the Administrator to not more than 75 percent until several statutorily required reports are submitted to Congress in 2013 and 2014. These include: (1) The report on stockpile assessments required under section 4205(f)(2) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2525(f)(2)); (2) The Secretary of Energy's portion of the report required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112- 81); (3) The annual assessment required under section 3122 of Public Law 112-81; and, (4) The detailed report (in 2013) and summary (in 2014) on the stockpile stewardship, management, and infrastructure plan required by section 4203(b) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2523(b)). The committee notes that in the past year, it did not receive many statutorily required reports that are key to conducting effective oversight of the nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear security enterprise. In particular, the four reports identified in this section are a critical means by which the committee is informed of the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile as well as the Administration's plans for the stockpile and enterprise. In 2012, the committee received the report on stockpile assessments from the President 3-months late and never received the ``Section 1043 Report'' or Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP). Regarding the Section 1043 Report and SSMP, it was not until December 7, 2012, that the committee was officially informed that the Administration would not be submitting the reports as required by law. The committee finds this to be unacceptable and has a direct and negative impact on the committee's oversight activities. Therefore, the committee recommends this section to ensure the reports are submitted, as required, in 2013 and 2014. Section 3118--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Global Threat Reduction Initiative This section would express the sense of Congress that, particularly in a constrained budget environment, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) should prioritize its primary mission of sustaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile and, if required, shift funding from secondary missions to ensure critical nuclear weapons modernization programs stay on schedule and deliver nuclear warheads needed to support military requirements. This section would also require that, of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative of the NNSA, not more than 80 percent may be obligated or expended unless, by not later than 60 days after the date of enactment, the NNSA Administrator certifies to the congressional defense committees that the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) will deliver a first production unit in fiscal year 2019. Finally, this section includes an exception that the limitation on funds described above does not affect the authority of the Secretary of Energy to reprogram or transfer such limited funds under section 4702 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2742). Section 3119--Establishment of Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Testing, and Response This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to establish a Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Testing, and Response within the nuclear security enterprise. The Center would be responsible for a range of activities, but would primarily serve to provide the Administrator, the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, and the management and operating contractors of the nuclear security enterprise a wide-range of objective expertise on security technologies, systems, analysis, testing, and response forces. The Center would also: (1) Assist the Administrator in developing standards, requirements, analysis methods, and testing criteria; (2) Collect, analyze, and distribute lessons learned; (3) Support inspections and oversight activities; (4) Promote professional development and training for security professionals; (5) Provide for advance and bulk procurement for security-related acquisitions that impact multiple facilities of the nuclear security enterprise; and (6) Advocate continual improvement and security excellence across the nuclear security enterprise. The committee notes that the Center established by this section would serve an advisory, support, and coordination function across the nuclear security enterprise, and would not replace the role of the Administrator or the Secretary of Energy in deciding final security requirements and policies or conducting oversight. The committee believes the Center would serve to advance a strong security culture and enable consistency, effectiveness, and coordination in security matters across the nuclear security enterprise. Section 3120--Cost-Benefit Analyses for Competition of Management and Operating Contracts This section would amend section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) to clarify that, if a management and operating contract awarded by the Administrator for Nuclear Security is protested, the report required by such section to be submitted to Congress shall be submitted not later than 30 days after such protest is resolved. This section would also require any report under section 3121 to include a description of the assumptions used and analysis conducted to determine cost savings expected from the competition of the contract and exempt contracts for managing and operating facilities of the Naval Reactors Program from the requirements of section 3121. The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) recent award of the contract for consolidated management and operations of the Y-12 National Security Complex and the Pantex Plant was protested by several bidders. On April 29, 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained this protest. GAO stated that it, ``sustained these protests on the basis that NNSA failed to follow the publicly-stated solicitation criteria, which provided that the agency would evaluate the feasibility and size of each offeror's proposed cost savings resulting from the consolidation of the management and operation of these sites. Specifically, GAO concluded that NNSA failed to meaningfully assess the majority of each offeror's proposed cost savings, and based its source selection decision on the unsupported assumption that all cost savings proposed by every offeror would be achieved.'' The committee believes NNSA's failure to meaningfully assess each offeror's proposed cost savings is unacceptable for a contract whose total value will likely exceed $22.8 billion. To ensure robust oversight of this issue, the committee recommends this section to ensure NNSA reports to Congress about the assumptions and analysis utilized to estimate anticipated cost savings. Finally, to protect proprietary information and the integrity of contract competitions, the committee believes submission of the report required by section 3121 of Public Law 112-239 is appropriate after any protest is resolved. Section 3121--W88-1 Warhead and W78-1 Warhead Life Extension Options This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Nuclear Weapons Council, to include several warhead life extension options through all of Phase 6.2 and all of Phase 6.2A of the Joint W78/88-1 Warhead Life Extension Program. The options would include: (1) A separate life extension option to produce a W78-1 warhead; (2) A separate life extension option to produce a W88-1 warhead; (3) A W78/88-1 life extension option that would produce an interoperable warhead for both intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine- launched ballistic missiles; and (4) Any other option that the Nuclear Weapons Council considers appropriate. During Phase 6.2 and Phase 6.2A, each such option would be required to receive a full analysis of feasibility, design definition, and cost estimation. The committee understands that the Nuclear Weapons Council has endorsed a long-term plan for U.S. nuclear weapons that would, through life extension programs, produce several interoperable nuclear warheads that contain components that may be deployed on either submarine-launched ballistic missiles or land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. The committee believes that while this conceptual approach has merit, caution is required. In particular, the committee is concerned about the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) ability to execute a W78/88-1 program that contains significant technical and programmatic risk. Close coordination between the Air Force, the Navy, and NNSA will be required throughout the program. In addition, the Nuclear Weapons Council must have full information on the various options for the life extension before entering Phase 6.3 (Development Engineering) of the program. Therefore, the committee believes this section is a prudent means of ensuring that full feasibility, design definition, and cost estimates are developed to enable a fully informed decision by the Nuclear Weapons Council on a final option. The committee discusses its views on commonality elsewhere in this report. Section 3122--Extension of Principles of Pilot Program to Additional Facilities of the Nuclear Security Enterprise This section would make a series of findings related to a pilot program conducted by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at the Kansas City Plant (KCP) starting in April 2006, and would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to extend the principles of such pilot program. The Administrator would be required to implement the principles of the pilot program permanently at the Kansas City Plant and extend the principles of the pilot program, with modifications as the Administrator determines appropriate, to not less than two additional facilities of the nuclear security enterprise within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. In carrying out the principles of the pilot program, the Administrator would be allowed to exempt high-hazard or high- risk activities from such extension, would be required to exempt nuclear operations from such extension, and would be required to focus initial extension of such principles on low- risk, high-reward initiatives. In extending the principles of the pilot program, the Administrator would be required to certify to the appropriate congressional committees that: (1) the management and operating contractor for a selected facility has sufficiently mature processes and high-performance to enable the extension without undue risk; and (2) Federal oversight mechanisms are in place and mature enough to enable the extension without undue risk. If the Administrator cannot make such a certification, the Administrator would be required to delay the extension until they can make such a certification and submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees regarding: what improvements to processes, procedures, and performance are required to make such certification; the Administrator's plan for what activities will be carried out to make such improvements; and the date by which the Administrator expects to make a certification. Based upon its continuing oversight of this issue, the committee continues to believe that reform of the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy's (DOE) approach to governance, management, and oversight of the nuclear security enterprise are required. In addition, the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy must streamline and clarify roles, responsibilities, and authorities and ensure robust accountability of both contractors and Federal officials when failures occur. The committee expects the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise established by section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to provide concrete and actionable recommendations for fixing the longstanding and well-documented problems with the current system. However, the committee is concerned that fiscal challenges and the large scope of work facing the National Nuclear Security Administration necessitate more immediate action as well. Therefore, the committee recommends this section to extend the principles of a previously successful pilot program to additional facilities of the enterprise. Such extension was recommended in 2009 by the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. The committee notes that while an independent assessment of the Kansas City Plant pilot program found significant cost savings and said, ``the lessons learned at KCP can and should be applied at other NNSA and DOE sites,'' the assessment also cautioned that application of the, ``elements [of the pilot] will be limited in other locations, primarily by the presence of high risk, high hazard activities and materials.'' The assessment went on to highlight several features of the pilot that should be considered for other sites within these limitations. The committee encourages the Administrator to carefully consider the advice of the independent assessment, as well as the recommendations in recent reports by the Government Accountability Office on this topic, in determining where and how to extend the principles of the pilot program. Finally, to ensure the committee is fully informed, the committee expects the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 30, 2013, on the benefits, risks, opportunities, and challenges associated with extension of the principles of the pilot program to additional sites. Subtitle C--Reports Section 3131--Annual Report and Certification on Status of the Security of the Nuclear Security Enterprise This section would amend section 4506 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act to require that, not later than September 30 of each year, the Administrator for Nuclear Security shall submit to the Secretary of Energy and to the congressional defense committees a report detailing the status of the security of the nuclear security enterprise, including the status of the security of special nuclear material, nuclear weapons, and classified information at each nuclear weapons production facility and national security laboratory. This section would also require that, as part of this annual report to the Secretary and to Congress, the Administrator certify that the special nuclear material, nuclear weapons, and classified information in the custody of the National Nuclear Security Administration are secure. Section 3132--Modifications to Annual Reports Regarding the Condition of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile This section would amend section 4205 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2525) to clarify requirements related to the statutorily required annual assessments regarding the condition of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Specifically, the assessments submitted by the head of each national security laboratory would be required to include a concise summary of any significant finding investigations initiated or active during the previous year. Furthermore, the assessment submitted by the commander, U.S. Strategic Command would be required to include a summary of major assembly releases in place as of the date of the assessment. This section would also require that, if the President does not forward the annual assessments to Congress by March 15 as required by statute, the appropriate officials submit their assessments directly to the congressional defense committees. The committee believes these annual stockpile assessments to be a critical means by which Congress stays apprised of the safety, reliability, performance, and military effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. In recent years, the committee has received these assessments after the statutory deadline of March 15. For instance, in 2012 the assessments were not submitted by the President until June 25. These delays have a direct and detrimental impact on the committee's ability to conduct oversight and carry out its responsibility to provide for the common defense. Review of past assessment letters indicate that the nuclear security laboratory directors and the commander, U.S. Strategic Command have been diligent in submitting their reports to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy on time. Therefore, the committee recommends this section that would require the laboratory directors and commander to submit their assessments directly to Congress should the President fail to submit the annual assessment report to Congress by March 15. Section 3133--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements This section would repeal two statutes requiring submission of annual, recurring reports: (1) a report on Counterintelligence and Security Practices at National Laboratories required by section 4507 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2658); and (2) a report on Advanced Supercomputer Sales to Certain Foreign Nations contained in section 3157 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). Repeal of these recurring report requirements was requested by the Secretary of Energy. The committee appreciates the Secretary's desire to reduce the number of recurring reports, but believes continued vigilance on the issues covered by these reports is warranted. The committee expects the Secretary of Energy to continue providing regular, annual briefings to the appropriate congressional committees on the matters covered by these reports to ensure continued leadership attention and robust congressional oversight. Subtitle D--Other Matters Section 3141--Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise This section would amend section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) to modify statutory deadlines regarding the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise. The advisory panel's interim report would be due by October 1, 2013, instead of 180 days after enactment of Public Law 112-239. Also, the advisory panel's full report would be due March 1, 2014, instead of February 1, 2014. Finally, the advisory panel would terminate not later than September 30, 2014, instead of June 1, 2014. This section would also enable the advisory panel to submit a final report on its activities and recommendations prior to termination. Given the late start of the panel's work resulting from the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), the committee believes these adjustments are prudent to enable the advisory panel to carry out its mandate. The committee reaffirms its belief, based on the findings of dozens of reports and the committee's own oversight activities, that the current system for governance, management, and oversight of the nuclear security enterprise is broken. The committee encourages the advisory panel to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the system and its problems, meet with all stakeholders, and consider a wide range of potential solutions. Ultimately, however, the committee expects the advisory panel to deliver a concrete, actionable, and bipartisan recommendation for how to fix the system. Section 3142--Study of Potential Reuse of Nuclear Weapon Secondaries This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to conduct a study of the potential reuse of nuclear weapon secondaries that includes: an assessment of the potential for reusing secondaries in future life extension programs; a description of such secondaries that could be reused; the number of such secondaries available as of the date of the study; and the number of such secondaries that are planned to be available as a result of the dismantlement of nuclear weapons. The study required under this section would be required to include a variety of other matters, including: an assessment of the feasibility and practicability of potential full or partial reuse options with respect to nuclear weapon secondaries; the benefits and risks of reusing such secondaries; a list of technical challenges that must be resolved to certify aged materials under dynamic loading conditions and the full stockpile-to-target sequence of weapons, including a program plan and timeline for resolving such technical challenges and an assessment of the importance of resolving outstanding materials issues on certifying aged secondaries; the potential costs and cost savings of such reuse; the effects of such reuse on the requirements for secondary manufacturing; and an assessment of how such reuse affects plans to build a responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure. This section would require the Administrator to submit the study carried out pursuant to this section to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014. Section 3143--Clarification of Role of Secretary of Energy This section would clarify that the amendment made by section 3113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112--239) to section 4102 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2512) may not be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary of Energy, in carrying out national security programs, with respect to the management, planning, and oversight of the National Nuclear Security Administration or as affecting the delegation by the Secretary of Energy of authority to carry out such activities, as set forth under subsection (a) of section 4102 as it existed before the amendment made by section 3113. Section 3144--Technical Amendment to Atomic Energy Act of 1954 This section would make a technical amendment to chapter 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.). TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD OVERVIEW The budget request contained $29.9 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends $29.9 million, the amount of the request. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 3201--Authorization This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2014. Section 3202--Improvements to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board This section would amend section 315 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286d) to enable the Secretary of Energy to request an analysis regarding the costs and benefits of any draft or final recommendation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. If the Secretary requests such an analysis, the Board would be required to transmit such an analysis to the Department of Energy within 30 days and make such analysis public when the associated recommendation is made available to the public. Additionally, if the Secretary requests such an analysis from the Board, the Secretary would be required to conduct a similar analysis of the costs and benefits of the recommendation and make such analysis available to the public. This section would also amend section 312 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (U.S.C. 2286a) to clarify that, in making recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, the Board must use rigorous, quantitative analysis and specifically assess the use of various administrative, passive, and engineered controls for implementing the recommended measures. TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations This section would authorize $20.0 million for fiscal year 2014 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Reserves. TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Title XI Ship Loan Guarantee The budget request contained $2.65 million to support expenses associated with administering the Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program. The committee notes that the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program is designed to promote the growth and modernization of the U.S. merchant marine and U.S. shipyards by enabling owners of eligible vessels and shipyards to obtain long-term financing on terms and conditions that might not otherwise be available for projects that are technically, financially, and economically sound. The committee supports an increase of $70.0 million for the Maritime Administration Title XI Ship loan guarantee program to expand the loan capacity of the Maritime Administration. This program is essential to modernize and sustain our U.S.-flagged Merchant Marine and United States shipbuilding industry, both of which are critical to national security preparedness. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2014 This section would authorize appropriations for the national security aspects of the Merchant Marine for fiscal year 2014. Section 3502--5-Year Reauthorization of Vessel War Risk Insurance Program This section would amend section 53912 of title 46, United States Code, relating to the expiration of chapter 539, War Risk Insurance Program. Under this program, the Secretary of Transportation, with the approval of the President, may provide insurance and reinsurance to American and foreign vessels that provide service to the U.S. Government. The insurance covers loss or damage caused by war risks. Whenever it appears to the Secretary that the insurance cannot be obtained on reasonable terms and conditions from the commercial insurance market, then such war risk insurance for vessels may be provided by the Secretary only on the condition that such vessels are available for the U.S. Government in time of war or national emergency. Section 3503--Sense of Congress This section would provide a sense of Congress on the importance of the United States shipbuilding industry and specifically the Ready Reserve Force of the Maritime Administration to the national security needs of the United States. This section also encourages the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of the Navy, to pursue the most cost effective means for recapitalizing the Ready Reserve Force. DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables This section would provide for the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this Act, subject to reprogramming guidance in accordance with established procedures. Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, this section would also require that a decision by an Agency Head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of section 2304(k) and section 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law. SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 (In Thousands of Dollars) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- House House FY 2014 Request Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request Function 051, Department of Defense-Military Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations Title I--Procurement Aircraft Procurement, Army....................................... 5,024,387 135,100 5,159,487 Missile Procurement, Army........................................ 1,334,083 1,334,083 Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.......................... 1,597,267 191,000 1,788,267 Procurement of Ammunition, Army.................................. 1,540,437 -74,500 1,465,937 Other Procurement, Army.......................................... 6,465,218 -54,300 6,410,918 Aircraft Procurement, Navy....................................... 17,927,651 30,000 17,957,651 Weapons Procurement, Navy........................................ 3,122,193 -14,100 3,108,093 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................... 589,267 589,267 Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy.................................. 14,077,804 934,300 15,012,104 Other Procurement, Navy.......................................... 6,310,257 -26,194 6,284,063 Procurement, Marine Corps........................................ 1,343,511 1,343,511 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................. 11,398,901 310,200 11,709,101 Missile Procurement, Air Force................................... 5,343,286 -703 5,342,583 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................. 759,442 759,442 Other Procurement, Air Force..................................... 16,760,581 16,760,581 Procurement, Defense-Wide........................................ 4,534,083 107,000 4,641,083 Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund.............................. 98,800 -98,800 0 Subtotal, Title I--Procurement................................... 98,227,168 1,439,003 99,666,171 Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................... 7,989,102 -47,000 7,942,102 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................... 15,974,780 58,100 16,032,880 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force.............. 25,702,946 76,000 25,778,946 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........... 17,667,108 472,124 18,139,232 Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense........................... 186,300 186,300 Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation... 67,520,236 559,224 68,079,460 Title III--Operation and Maintenance Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 35,073,077 232,476 34,840,601 Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve............................ 3,095,036 29,100 3,124,136 Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard..................... 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396 Operation & Maintenance, Navy.................................... 39,945,237 -26,994 39,918,243 Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps............................ 6,254,650 24,100 6,278,750 Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve............................ 1,197,752 5,000 1,202,752 Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.................... 263,317 1,800 265,117 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 37,270,842 166,830 37,437,672 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve....................... 3,164,607 9,100 3,173,707 Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard...................... 6,566,004 26,900 6,592,904 Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 32,997,693 -497,062 32,500,631 US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense................ 13,606 -980 12,626 Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid.................... 109,500 109,500 Cooperative Threat Reduction..................................... 528,455 528,455 Defense Acquisition Development Workforce Fund................... 256,031 256,031 Environmental Restoration, Army.................................. 298,815 298,815 Environmental Restoration, Navy.................................. 316,103 316,103 Environmental Restoration, Air Force............................. 439,820 439,820 Environmental Restoration, Defense............................... 10,757 10,757 Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites................... 237,443 237,443 Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund.................... 5,000 -5,000 0 Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance................... 175,097,941 -425,482 174,672,459 Title IV--Military Personnel Military Personnel Appropriations................................ 130,399,881 -180,600 130,219,281 Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.............. 6,676,750 6,676,750 Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel........................... 137,076,631 -180,600 136,896,031 Title XIV--Other Authorizations Working Capital Fund, Army....................................... 25,158 25,158 Working Capital Fund, Air Force.................................. 61,731 61,731 Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................... 46,428 46,428 Working Capital Fund, DECA....................................... 1,412,510 1,412,510 National Defense Sealift Fund.................................... 730,700 730,700 Defense Health Program........................................... 33,054,528 -276,800 32,777,728 Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction.......................... 1,057,123 1,057,123 Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities.................... 938,545 938,545 Office of the Inspector General.................................. 312,131 312,131 Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations........................ 37,638,854 -276,800 37,362,054 Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations.......... 515,560,830 1,115,345 516,676,175 Division B: Military Construction Authorizations Military Construction Army............................................................. 1,119,875 -20,000 1,099,875 Navy............................................................. 1,700,269 1,700,269 Air Force........................................................ 1,156,573 -17,730 1,138,843 Defense-Wide..................................................... 3,985,300 -276,927 3,708,373 Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense.................. 122,536 122,536 NATO Security Investment Program................................. 239,700 -40,000 199,700 Army National Guard.............................................. 320,815 -5,000 315,815 Army Reserve..................................................... 174,060 174,060 Navy and Marine Corps Reserve.................................... 32,976 32,976 Air National Guard............................................... 119,800 -12,000 107,800 Air Force Reserve................................................ 45,659 45,659 Subtotal, Military Construction.................................. 9,017,563 -371,657 8,645,906 Family Housing Construction, Army............................................... 44,008 44,008 Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 512,871 512,871 Construction, Navy and Marine Corps.............................. 73,407 73,407 Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps................... 389,844 389,844 Construction, Air Force.......................................... 76,360 76,360 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 388,598 388,598 Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 55,845 55,845 Family Housing Improvement Fund.................................. 1,780 1,780 Subtotal, Family Housing......................................... 1,542,713 1,542,713 Base Realignment and Closure Base Realignment and Closure--Army............................... 180,401 180,401 Base Realignment and Closure--Navy............................... 144,580 144,580 Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force.......................... 126,376 126,376 Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure........................... 451,357 451,357 Undistributed Adjustments Prior Year Savings............................................... 0 -584,413 -584,413 Subtotal, Undistributed Adjustments.............................. 0 -584,413 -584,413 Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations.......... 11,011,633 -956,070 10,055,563 Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military....................... 526,572,463 159,275 526,731,738 Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations Environmental and Other Defense Activities Electricity delivery and energy reliability...................... 16,000 -16,000 0 Nuclear Energy................................................... 94,000 94,000 Weapons Activities............................................... 7,868,409 220,000 8,088,409 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................. 2,140,142 2,140,142 Naval Reactors................................................... 1,246,134 1,246,134 Office of the Administrator...................................... 397,784 -8,000 389,784 Defense Environmental Cleanup.................................... 5,316,909 -358,000 4,958,909 Other Defense Activities......................................... 749,080 749,080 Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities............. 17,828,458 -162,000 17,666,458 Independent Federal Agency Authorization Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......................... 29,915 29,915 Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization............... 29,915 29,915 Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security 17,858,373 -162,000 17,696,373 Authorization and Other Authorizations.......................... Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities.................. 17,858,373 -162,000 17,696,373 Total, National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request............. 544,430,836 -2,725 544,428,111 National Defense Funding, OCO Budget Request Function 051, Department of Defense-Military Procurement Aircraft Procurement, Army....................................... 771,788 771,788 Missile Procurement, Army........................................ 128,645 25,887 154,532 Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.......................... 0 15,422 15,422 Procurement of Ammunition, Army.................................. 180,900 34,482 215,382 Other Procurement, Army.......................................... 603,123 340,937 944,060 Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 Aircraft Procurement, Navy....................................... 240,696 240,696 Weapons Procurement, Navy........................................ 86,500 86,500 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................... 206,821 206,821 Other Procurement, Navy.......................................... 17,968 17,968 Procurement, Marine Corps........................................ 129,584 129,584 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................. 115,668 115,668 Missile Procurement, Air Force................................... 24,200 24,200 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................. 159,965 159,965 Other Procurement, Air Force..................................... 2,574,846 2,574,846 Procurement, Defense-Wide........................................ 111,275 111,275 Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund.............................. 15,000 -15,000 0 National Guard & Reserve Equipment............................... 0 400,000 400,000 Subtotal, Procurement............................................ 6,366,979 801,728 7,168,707 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................... 7,000 7,000 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................... 34,426 34,426 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force.............. 9,000 9,000 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........... 66,208 66,208 Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation............. 116,634 116,634 Operation and Maintenance Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 29,279,633 2,116,100 31,395,733 Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve............................ 42,935 75,800 118,735 Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard..................... 199,371 199,371 Afghanistan Security Forces Fund................................. 7,726,720 7,726,720 Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.................................. 279,000 279,000 Operation & Maintenance, Navy.................................... 6,067,993 949,800 7,017,793 Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps............................ 2,669,815 61,400 2,731,215 Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve............................ 55,700 55,700 Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.................... 12,534 12,534 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 10,005,224 1,004,000 11,009,224 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve....................... 32,849 32,849 Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard...................... 22,200 22,200 Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 6,435,078 35,000 6,470,078 Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance.............................. 62,829,052 4,242,100 67,071,152 Military Personnel Military Personnel Appropriations................................ 9,689,307 9,689,307 Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.............. 164,033 164,033 Subtotal, Military Personnel..................................... 9,853,340 9,853,340 Other Authorizations Working Capital Fund, Army....................................... 44,732 44,732 Working Capital Fund, Air Force.................................. 88,500 88,500 Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................... 131,678 131,678 Defense Health Program........................................... 904,201 904,201 Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities.................... 376,305 376,305 Office of the Inspector General.................................. 10,766 10,766 Subtotal, Other Authorizations................................... 1,556,182 1,556,182 Total, National Defense Funding, OCO Budget Request.............. 80,722,187 5,043,828 85,766,015 Total, National Defense.......................................... 625,153,023 5,041,103 630,194,126 MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600)........... 67,800 67,800 Title XIV--Cemeterial Expenses, Army (Function 700).............. 45,800 25,000 70,800 Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Function 20,000 20,000 270)............................................................ Title XXXV--Maritime Administration (Function 400)............... 152,168 45,000 197,168 MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD) Title X--General Transfer Authority.............................. [4,000,000] [3,500,000] Title XV--Special Transfer Authority............................. [4,000,000] [3,000,000] MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (NON-ADD) Defense Production Act........................................... [25,135] [25,135] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (In Thousands of Dollars) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 2014 House House Request Change Authorized ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 526,572,463 159,275 526,731,738 (051)......................... SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 17,858,373 -162,000 17,696,373 PROGRAMS (053)................ TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)-- 544,430,836 -2,725 544,428,111 BASE BILL..................... TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 80,722,187 5,043,828 85,766,015 OPERATIONS.................... GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE.. 625,153,023 5,041,103 630,194,126 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 25,135 25,135 Purchases..................... Indefinite Account: Disposal Of 10,000 10,000 DOD Real Property............. Indefinite Account: Lease Of 30,000 30,000 DOD Real Property............. Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 65,135 65,135 051........................... Formerly Utilized Sites 104,000 104,000 Remedial Action Program....... Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 104,000 104,000 053........................... Other Discretionary Programs... 7,407,000 7,407,000 Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 7,407,000 7,407,000 054........................... Total Defense Discretionary 7,576,135 7,576,135 Adjustments (050)............. Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary Department of Defense--Military 607,359,785 5,203,103 612,562,888 (051)......................... Atomic Energy Defense 17,962,373 -162,000 17,800,373 Activities (053).............. Defense-Related Activities 7,407,000 7,407,000 (054)......................... Total BA Implication, National 632,729,158 5,041,103 637,770,261 Defense Discretionary......... National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (OMB Estimates) Concurrent receipt accrual 6,970,000 6,970,000 payments to the Military Retirement Fund............... Revolving, trust and other DOD 1,156,000 1,156,000 Mandatory..................... Offsetting receipts............ -1,752,000 -1,752,000 Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 6,374,000 6,374,000 051........................... Energy employees occupational 1,281,000 1,281,000 illness compensation programs and other..................... Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 1,281,000 1,281,000 053........................... Radiation exposure compensation 76,000 76,000 trust fund.................... Payment to CIA retirement fund 514,000 514,000 and other..................... Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 590,000 590,000 054........................... Total National Defense 8,245,000 8,245,000 Mandatory (050)............... Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory Department of Defense--Military 613,733,785 5,203,103 618,936,888 (051)......................... Atomic Energy Defense 19,243,373 -162,000 19,081,373 Activities (053).............. Defense-Related Activities 7,997,000 7,997,000 (054)......................... Total BA Implication, National 640,974,158 5,041,103 646,015,261 Defense Discretionary and Mandatory..................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized Line Item --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 001 UTILITY F/W 1 19,730 1 19,730 AIRCRAFT. 002 AERIAL COMMON 4 142,050 4 142,050 SENSOR (ACS) (MIP). 003 MQ-1 UAV....... 15 518,460 4 19 518,460 004 RQ-11 (RAVEN).. 10,772 10,772 ROTARY 005 HELICOPTER, 10 96,227 21 135,100 31 231,327 LIGHT UTILITY (LUH). Program [21] [115,100] increase for additional aircraft. Program [20,000] increase for fielding. 006 AH-64 APACHE 42 608,469 42 608,469 BLOCK IIIA REMAN. 007 ADVANCE 150,931 150,931 PROCUREMENT (CY). 011 UH-60 BLACKHAWK 65 1,046,976 65 1,046,976 M MODEL (MYP). 012 ADVANCE 116,001 116,001 PROCUREMENT (CY). 013 CH-47 28 801,650 28 801,650 HELICOPTER. 014 ADVANCE 98,376 98,376 PROCUREMENT (CY). MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 015 MQ-1 PAYLOAD-- 97,781 97,781 UAS. 016 GUARDRAIL MODS 10,262 10,262 (MIP). 017 MULTI SENSOR 12,467 12,467 ABN RECON (MIP). 018 AH-64 MODS..... 53,559 53,559 019 CH-47 CARGO 149,764 149,764 HELICOPTER MODS (MYP). 020 UTILITY/CARGO 17,500 17,500 AIRPLANE MODS. 021 UTILITY 167 74,095 167 74,095 HELICOPTER MODS. 022 KIOWA MODS 3 184,044 3 184,044 WARRIOR. 023 NETWORK AND 152,569 152,569 MISSION PLAN. 024 COMMS, NAV 92,779 92,779 SURVEILLANCE. 025 GATM ROLLUP.... 65,613 65,613 026 RQ-7 UAV MODS.. 121,902 121,902 GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 027 AIRCRAFT 47,610 47,610 SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT. 028 SURVIVABILITY 5,700 5,700 CM. 029 CMWS........... 126,869 126,869 OTHER SUPPORT 030 AVIONICS 705 6,809 705 6,809 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 031 COMMON GROUND 65,397 65,397 EQUIPMENT. 032 AIRCREW 45,841 45,841 INTEGRATED SYSTEMS. 033 AIR TRAFFIC 79,692 79,692 CONTROL. 034 INDUSTRIAL 1,615 1,615 FACILITIES. 035 LAUNCHER, 2.75 2,877 2,877 ROCKET. TOTAL 1,040 5,024,387 25 135,100 1,065 5,159,487 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMEN T, ARMY. MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 002 MSE MISSILE.... 56 540,401 56 540,401 AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 003 HELLFIRE SYS 4,464 4,464 SUMMARY. ANTI-TANK/ ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 004 JAVELIN (AAWS- 449 110,510 449 110,510 M) SYSTEM SUMMARY. 005 TOW 2 SYSTEM 988 49,354 988 49,354 SUMMARY. 006 ADVANCE 19,965 19,965 PROCUREMENT (CY). 007 GUIDED MLRS 1,788 237,216 1,788 237,216 ROCKET (GMLRS). 008 MLRS REDUCED 2,412 19,022 2,412 19,022 RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR). MODIFICATIONS 010 PATRIOT MODS... 256,438 256,438 011 STINGER MODS... 37,252 37,252 012 ITAS/TOW MODS.. 20,000 20,000 013 MLRS MODS...... 11,571 11,571 014 HIMARS 6,105 6,105 MODIFICATIONS. SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 015 SPARES AND 11,222 11,222 REPAIR PARTS. SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 016 AIR DEFENSE 3,530 3,530 TARGETS. 017 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,748 1,748 $5.0M (MISSILES). 018 PRODUCTION BASE 5,285 5,285 SUPPORT. TOTAL 5,693 1,334,083 5,693 1,334,083 MISSILE PROCUREMEN T, ARMY. PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 001 STRYKER VEHICLE 374,100 374,100 MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 002 STRYKER (MOD).. 20,522 20,522 003 FIST VEHICLE 29,965 29,965 (MOD). 004 BRADLEY PROGRAM 158,000 158,000 (MOD). 005 HOWITZER, MED 4,769 4,769 SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD). 006 PALADIN 18 260,177 18 260,177 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM). 007 IMPROVED 111,031 75,000 186,031 RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES). Program [75,000] increase. 008 ASSAULT BRIDGE 2,500 2,500 (MOD). 009 ASSAULT 14 62,951 7 31,000 21 93,951 BREACHER VEHICLE. Program [7] [31,000] increase. 010 M88 FOV MODS... 28,469 28,469 011 JOINT ASSAULT 2,002 2,002 BRIDGE. 012 M1 ABRAMS TANK 178,100 178,100 (MOD). 013 ABRAMS UPGRADE 168,000 168,000 PROGRAM. Program [168,000] increase. SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 014 PRODUCTION BASE 1,544 1,544 SUPPORT (TCV- WTCV). WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 015 INTEGRATED AIR 1,424 69,147 -1424 -61,000 8,147 BURST WEAPON SYSTEM FAMILY. Funding [-1,424] [-50,000] ahead of need. Transfer to [-11,000] PE 64601A per Army's request. 018 MORTAR SYSTEMS. 5,310 5,310 019 XM320 GRENADE 5,061 24,049 5,061 24,049 LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM). 021 CARBINE........ 41,897 70,846 -22,000 41,897 48,846 Funding [-22,000] ahead of need. 023 COMMON REMOTELY 242 56,580 242 56,580 OPERATED WEAPONS STATION. 024 HANDGUN........ 300 300 MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 026 M777 MODS...... 39,300 39,300 027 M4 CARBINE MODS 10,300 10,300 028 M2 50 CAL 33,691 33,691 MACHINE GUN MODS. 029 M249 SAW 7,608 7,608 MACHINE GUN MODS. 030 M240 MEDIUM 2,719 2,719 MACHINE GUN MODS. 031 SNIPER RIFLES 7,017 7,017 MODIFICATIONS. 032 M119 18,707 18,707 MODIFICATIONS. 033 M16 RIFLE MODS. 2,136 2,136 034 MODIFICATIONS 1,569 1,569 LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV- WTCV). SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 035 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,024 2,024 $5.0M (WOCV- WTCV). 036 PRODUCTION BASE 10,108 10,108 SUPPORT (WOCV- WTCV). 037 INDUSTRIAL 459 459 PREPAREDNESS. 038 SMALL ARMS 1,267 1,267 EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG). TOTAL 48,656 1,597,267 -1,417 191,000 47,239 1,788,267 PROCUREMEN T OF W&TCV, ARMY. PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 002 CTG, 5.56MM, 112,167 -25,000 87,167 ALL TYPES. Unit cost [-25,000] efficiencie s--Army requested reduction. 003 CTG, 7.62MM, 58,571 -5,000 53,571 ALL TYPES. Unit cost [-5,000] efficiencie s--Army requested reduction. 004 CTG, HANDGUN, 9,858 9,858 ALL TYPES. 005 CTG, .50 CAL, 80,037 -25,000 55,037 ALL TYPES. Unit cost [-25,000] efficiencie s--Army requested reduction. 007 CTG, 25MM, ALL 16,496 16,496 TYPES. 008 CTG, 30MM, ALL 69,533 -19,500 50,033 TYPES. Unit cost [-19,500] efficiencie s--Army requested reduction. 009 CTG, 40MM, ALL 55,781 55,781 TYPES. MORTAR AMMUNITION 010 60MM MORTAR, 38,029 38,029 ALL TYPES. 011 81MM MORTAR, 24,656 24,656 ALL TYPES. 012 120MM MORTAR, 60,781 60,781 ALL TYPES. TANK AMMUNITION 013 CARTRIDGES, 121,551 121,551 TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES. ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 014 ARTILLERY 39,825 39,825 CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES. 015 ARTILLERY 37,902 37,902 PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES. 016 PROJ 155MM 802 67,896 802 67,896 EXTENDED RANGE M982. 017 ARTILLERY 71,205 71,205 PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL. ROCKETS 020 SHOULDER 1,012 1,012 LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES. 021 ROCKET, HYDRA 108,476 108,476 70, ALL TYPES. OTHER AMMUNITION 022 DEMOLITION 24,074 24,074 MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES. 023 GRENADES, ALL 33,242 33,242 TYPES. 024 SIGNALS, ALL 7,609 7,609 TYPES. 025 SIMULATORS, ALL 5,228 5,228 TYPES. MISCELLANEOUS 026 AMMO 16,700 16,700 COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES. 027 NON-LETHAL 7,366 7,366 AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES. 028 CAD/PAD ALL 3,614 3,614 TYPES. 029 ITEMS LESS THAN 12,423 12,423 $5 MILLION (AMMO). 030 AMMUNITION 16,604 16,604 PECULIAR EQUIPMENT. 031 FIRST 14,328 14,328 DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO). 032 CLOSEOUT 108 108 LIABILITIES. PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 033 PROVISION OF 242,324 242,324 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. 034 CONVENTIONAL 179,605 179,605 MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATI ON. 035 ARMS INITIATIVE 3,436 3,436 TOTAL 802 1,540,437 -74,500 802 1,465,937 PROCUREMEN T OF AMMUNITION , ARMY. OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 001 TACTICAL 25 4,000 25 4,000 TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS. 002 SEMITRAILERS, 40 6,841 40 6,841 FLATBED:. 003 FAMILY OF 837 223,910 837 223,910 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV). 004 FIRETRUCKS & 11,880 11,880 ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP. 005 FAMILY OF HEAVY 220 14,731 220 14,731 TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV). 006 PLS ESP........ 74 44,252 74 44,252 009 HVY EXPANDED 77 39,525 77 39,525 MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV. 011 TACTICAL 746 51,258 -25,300 746 25,958 WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS. Funding [-25,300] ahead of need. 012 MODIFICATION OF 34 49,904 34 49,904 IN SVC EQUIP. 013 MINE-RESISTANT 2,200 2,200 AMBUSH- PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS. NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 014 HEAVY ARMORED 400 400 SEDAN. 015 PASSENGER 716 716 CARRYING VEHICLES. 016 NONTACTICAL 5,619 5,619 VEHICLES, OTHER. COMM--JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 018 WIN-T--GROUND 2,139 973,477 2,139 973,477 FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK. 019 SIGNAL 14,120 14,120 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM. 020 JOINT INCIDENT 7,869 7,869 SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY. 021 JCSE EQUIPMENT 5,296 5,296 (USREDCOM). COMM--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 022 DEFENSE 31 147,212 31 147,212 ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS. 023 TRANSPORTABLE 7,998 7,998 TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS. 024 SHF TERM....... 7,232 7,232 025 NAVSTAR GLOBAL 3,308 3,308 POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE). 026 SMART-T (SPACE) 13,992 13,992 028 GLOBAL BRDCST 94 28,206 94 28,206 SVC--GBS. 029 MOD OF IN-SVC 15 2,778 15 2,778 EQUIP (TAC SAT). COMM--C3 SYSTEM 031 ARMY GLOBAL CMD 17,590 17,590 & CONTROL SYS (AGCCS). COMM--COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 032 ARMY DATA 786 786 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO). 033 JOINT TACTICAL 10,523 382,930 10,523 382,930 RADIO SYSTEM. 034 MID-TIER 130 19,200 130 19,200 NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR). 035 RADIO TERMINAL 1,438 1,438 SET, MIDS LVT(2). 036 SINCGARS FAMILY 9,856 9,856 037 AMC CRITICAL 2,066 14,184 2,066 14,184 ITEMS--OPA2. 038 TRACTOR DESK... 6,271 6,271 040 SOLDIER 1,030 1,030 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ ELECTRONICS. 041 TACTICAL 15,967 31,868 15,967 31,868 COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM. 042 UNIFIED COMMAND 18,000 18,000 SUITE. 044 RADIO, IMPROVED 1,166 1,166 HF (COTS) FAMILY. 045 FAMILY OF MED 22,867 22,867 COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE. COMM--INTELLIGE NCE COMM 048 CI AUTOMATION 1,512 1,512 ARCHITECTURE. 049 ARMY CA/MISO 323 61,096 323 61,096 GPF EQUIPMENT. INFORMATION SECURITY 050 TSEC--ARMY KEY 13,890 13,890 MGT SYS (AKMS). 051 INFORMATION 1,133 23,245 1,133 23,245 SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP. 052 BIOMETRICS 3,800 3,800 ENTERPRISE. 053 COMMUNICATIONS 877 24,711 877 24,711 SECURITY (COMSEC). COMM--LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 055 BASE SUPPORT 43,395 43,395 COMMUNICATIONS. COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS 057 INFORMATION 104,577 104,577 SYSTEMS. 058 DEFENSE MESSAGE 612 612 SYSTEM (DMS). 059 EMERGENCY 39,000 39,000 MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM. 060 INSTALLATION 248,477 248,477 INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM. ELECT EQUIP-- TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 064 JTT/CIBS-M..... 824 824 065 PROPHET GROUND. 10 59,198 10 59,198 067 DCGS-A (MIP)... 2,717 267,214 2,717 267,214 068 JOINT TACTICAL 5 9,899 5 9,899 GROUND STATION (JTAGS). 069 TROJAN (MIP)... 24,598 24,598 070 MOD OF IN-SVC 1,927 1,927 EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP). 071 CI HUMINT AUTO 6,169 6,169 REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS). 072 MACHINE FOREIGN 2,924 2,924 LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SYSTEM-M. ELECT EQUIP-- ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 074 LIGHTWEIGHT 18 40,735 18 40,735 COUNTER MORTAR RADAR. 075 EW PLANNING & 13 13 MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT). 076 ENEMY UAS...... 2,800 2,800 079 COUNTERINTELLIG 1,237 1,237 ENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURE S. 080 CI 1,399 1,399 MODERNIZATION. ELECT EQUIP-- TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 082 SENTINEL MODS.. 86 47,983 86 47,983 083 SENSE THROUGH 142 142 THE WALL (STTW). 084 NIGHT VISION 6,879 202,428 6,879 202,428 DEVICES. 085 LONG RANGE 5,183 5,183 ADVANCED SCOUT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM. 086 NIGHT VISION, 14,074 14,074 THERMAL WPN SIGHT. 087 SMALL TACTICAL 1,491 22,300 1,491 22,300 OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF. 089 GREEN LASER 1,016 1,016 INTERDICTION SYSTEM (GLIS). 090 INDIRECT FIRE 5 55,354 5 55,354 PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS. 091 ARTILLERY 800 800 ACCURACY EQUIP. 092 PROFILER....... 3,027 3,027 093 MOD OF IN-SVC 1,185 1,185 EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS). 094 JOINT BATTLE 3,866 103,214 3,866 103,214 COMMAND--PLATF ORM (JBC-P). 096 MOD OF IN-SVC 167 26,037 167 26,037 EQUIP (LLDR). 097 MORTAR FIRE 120 23,100 120 23,100 CONTROL SYSTEM. 098 COUNTERFIRE 19 312,727 19 312,727 RADARS. ELECT EQUIP-- TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 101 FIRE SUPPORT C2 574 43,228 574 43,228 FAMILY. 102 BATTLE COMMAND 167 14,446 167 14,446 SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT SYSTEM. 103 FAAD C2........ 4,607 4,607 104 AIR & MSL 8 33,090 8 33,090 DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS. 105 IAMD BATTLE 21,200 21,200 COMMAND SYSTEM. 107 LIFE CYCLE 1,795 1,795 SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS). 109 NETWORK 54,327 54,327 MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE. 110 MANEUVER 2,959 59,171 2,959 59,171 CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS). 111 GLOBAL COMBAT 83,936 83,936 SUPPORT SYSTEM- ARMY (GCSS-A). 113 LOGISTICS 25,476 25,476 AUTOMATION. 114 RECONNAISSANCE 212 19,341 212 19,341 AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET. ELECT EQUIP-- AUTOMATION 115 ARMY TRAINING 11,865 11,865 MODERNIZATION. 116 AUTOMATED DATA 219,431 219,431 PROCESSING EQUIP. 117 GENERAL FUND 6,414 6,414 ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM. 118 HIGH PERF 62,683 62,683 COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP). 120 RESERVE 34,951 34,951 COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS). ELECT EQUIP-- AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 121 ITEMS LESS THAN 7,440 7,440 $5.0M (A/V). 122 ITEMS LESS THAN 16 1,615 16 1,615 $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT). ELECT EQUIP-- SUPPORT 123 PRODUCTION BASE 554 554 SUPPORT (C-E). 124 BCT EMERGING 20,000 20,000 TECHNOLOGIES. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 124A CLASSIFIED 3,558 3,558 PROGRAMS. CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 126 FAMILY OF NON- 762 762 LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE). 127 BASE DEFENSE 3,759 20,630 3,759 20,630 SYSTEMS (BDS). 128 CBRN DEFENSE... 24,530 22,151 24,530 22,151 BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 130 TACTICAL 2 14,188 2 14,188 BRIDGING. 131 TACTICAL 34 23,101 34 23,101 BRIDGE, FLOAT- RIBBON. 132 COMMON BRIDGE 15,416 15,416 TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP. ENGINEER (NON- CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 134 GRND STANDOFF 311 50,465 311 50,465 MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS). 135 ROBOTIC COMBAT 6,490 6,490 SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS). 136 EOD ROBOTICS 1,563 1,563 SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATI ON. 137 EXPLOSIVE 6,774 20,921 6,774 20,921 ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT). 138 REMOTE 100 100 DEMOLITION SYSTEMS. 139 < $5M, 70 2,271 70 2,271 COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT. COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 140 HEATERS AND 464 7,269 464 7,269 ECU'S. 141 LAUNDRIES, 200 200 SHOWERS AND LATRINES. 142 SOLDIER 1,468 1,468 ENHANCEMENT. 143 PERSONNEL 31,530 26,526 31,530 26,526 RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS). 144 GROUND SOLDIER 5,547 81,680 -10,000 5,547 71,680 SYSTEM. Unjustified [-10,000] unit cost growth. 147 FIELD FEEDING 217 28,096 217 28,096 EQUIPMENT. 148 CARGO AERIAL 6,904 56,150 6,904 56,150 DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM. 149 MORTUARY 248 3,242 248 3,242 AFFAIRS SYSTEMS. 150 FAMILY OF ENGR 289 38,141 289 38,141 COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS. 151 ITEMS LESS THAN 210 5,859 210 5,859 $5M (ENG SPT). PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 152 DISTRIBUTION 508 60,612 508 60,612 SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER. MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 153 COMBAT SUPPORT 3,258 22,042 3,258 22,042 MEDICAL. 154 MEDEVAC MISSON 88 35,318 88 35,318 EQUIPMENT PACKAGE (MEP). MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 155 MOBILE 25 19,427 25 19,427 MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS. 156 ITEMS LESS THAN 347 3,860 347 3,860 $5.0M (MAINT EQ). CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 157 GRADER, ROAD 2,000 2,000 MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE). 159 SCRAPERS, 52 36,078 52 36,078 EARTHMOVING. 160 MISSION 13 9,721 13 9,721 MODULES--ENGIN EERING. 162 HYDRAULIC 109 50,122 109 50,122 EXCAVATOR. 163 TRACTOR, FULL 84 28,828 84 28,828 TRACKED. 164 ALL TERRAIN 19 19,863 19 19,863 CRANES. 166 HIGH MOBILITY 34 23,465 34 23,465 ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE). 168 ENHANCED RAPID 109 13,590 109 13,590 AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP. 169 CONST EQUIP ESP 80 16,088 80 16,088 170 ITEMS LESS THAN 66 6,850 66 6,850 $5.0M (CONST EQUIP). RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATI ON EQUIPMENT 171 ARMY WATERCRAFT 38,007 -19,000 19,007 ESP. Funding [-19,000] ahead of need. 172 ITEMS LESS THAN 10,605 10,605 $5.0M (FLOAT/ RAIL). GENERATORS 173 GENERATORS AND 5,239 129,437 5,239 129,437 ASSOCIATED EQUIP. MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 174 ROUGH TERRAIN 1,250 1,250 CONTAINER HANDLER (RTCH). 175 FAMILY OF 60 8,260 60 8,260 FORKLIFTS. TRAINING EQUIPMENT 176 COMBAT TRAINING 309 121,710 309 121,710 CENTERS SUPPORT. 177 TRAINING 8,181 225,200 8,181 225,200 DEVICES, NONSYSTEM. 178 CLOSE COMBAT 15 30,063 15 30,063 TACTICAL TRAINER. 179 AVIATION 2 34,913 2 34,913 COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER. 180 GAMING 9,955 9,955 TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING. TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 181 CALIBRATION 3 8,241 3 8,241 SETS EQUIPMENT. 182 INTEGRATED 1,810 67,506 1,810 67,506 FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE). 183 TEST EQUIPMENT 2,105 18,755 2,105 18,755 MODERNIZATION (TEMOD). OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 184 M25 STABILIZED 647 5,110 647 5,110 BINOCULAR. 185 RAPID EQUIPPING 5,110 5,110 SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 186 PHYSICAL 62,904 62,904 SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3). 187 BASE LEVEL 1,427 1,427 COMMON EQUIPMENT. 188 MODIFICATION OF 1,936 96,661 1,936 96,661 IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA- 3). 189 PRODUCTION BASE 2,450 2,450 SUPPORT (OTH). 190 SPECIAL 69 11,593 69 11,593 EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING. 191 AMC CRITICAL 1,597 8,948 1,597 8,948 ITEMS OPA3. 192 TRACTOR YARD... 8,000 8,000 OPA2 195 INITIAL SPARES-- 15 59,700 15 59,700 C&E. TOTAL 162,339 6,465,218 -54,300 162,339 6,410,918 OTHER PROCUREMEN T, ARMY. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 001 EA-18G......... 21 2,001,787 -45,000 21 1,956,787 Program [-45,000] adjustment. 003 F/A-18E/F 206,551 206,551 (FIGHTER) HORNET. 004 ADVANCE 75,000 75,000 PROCUREMENT (CY). Program [75,000] increase. 005 JOINT STRIKE 4 1,135,444 4 1,135,444 FIGHTER CV. 006 ADVANCE 94,766 94,766 PROCUREMENT (CY). 007 JSF STOVL...... 6 1,267,260 6 1,267,260 008 ADVANCE 103,195 103,195 PROCUREMENT (CY). 009 V-22 (MEDIUM 18 1,432,573 18 1,432,573 LIFT). 010 ADVANCE 55,196 55,196 PROCUREMENT (CY). 011 H-1 UPGRADES 25 749,962 25 749,962 (UH-1Y/AH-1Z). 012 ADVANCE 71,000 71,000 PROCUREMENT (CY). 013 MH-60S (MYP)... 18 383,831 18 383,831 014 ADVANCE 37,278 37,278 PROCUREMENT (CY). 015 MH-60R (MYP)... 19 599,237 1 20 599,237 016 ADVANCE 231,834 231,834 PROCUREMENT (CY). 017 P-8A POSEIDON.. 16 3,189,989 16 3,189,989 018 ADVANCE 313,160 313,160 PROCUREMENT (CY). 019 E-2D ADV 5 997,107 -35,000 5 962,107 HAWKEYE. Unjustified [-35,000] CRI Funding. 020 ADVANCE 266,542 266,542 PROCUREMENT (CY). TRAINER AIRCRAFT 021 JPATS.......... 29 249,080 29 249,080 OTHER AIRCRAFT 022 KC-130J........ 2 134,358 2 134,358 023 ADVANCE 32,288 32,288 PROCUREMENT (CY). 025 ADVANCE 52,002 52,002 PROCUREMENT (CY). 026 MQ-8 UAV....... 1 60,980 1 60,980 028 OTHER SUPPORT 1 14,958 1 14,958 AIRCRAFT. MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 029 EA-6 SERIES.... 18,577 18,577 030 AEA SYSTEMS.... 48,502 48,502 031 AV-8 SERIES.... 41,575 41,575 032 ADVERSARY...... 2,992 2,992 033 F-18 SERIES.... 875,371 875,371 034 H-46 SERIES.... 2,127 2,127 036 H-53 SERIES.... 67,675 67,675 037 SH-60 SERIES... 135,054 135,054 038 H-1 SERIES..... 41,706 41,706 039 EP-3 SERIES.... 55,903 12 22,000 12 77,903 12th [8,000] Aircraft Spiral 3 Upgrade. Multi-INT [12] [14,000] Sensor Kits & Installatio n. 040 P-3 SERIES..... 37,436 37,436 041 E-2 SERIES..... 31,044 31,044 042 TRAINER A/C 43,720 43,720 SERIES. 043 C-2A........... 902 902 044 C-130 SERIES... 47,587 47,587 045 FEWSG.......... 665 665 046 CARGO/TRANSPORT 14,587 14,587 A/C SERIES. 047 E-6 SERIES..... 189,312 189,312 048 EXECUTIVE 85,537 85,537 HELICOPTERS SERIES. 049 SPECIAL PROJECT 3,684 4 13,000 4 16,684 AIRCRAFT. Engineering [8,000] and Technical Services Support. Multi-INT [4] [5,000] Sensor Kits & Installatio n. 050 T-45 SERIES.... 98,128 98,128 051 POWER PLANT 22,999 22,999 CHANGES. 052 JPATS SERIES... 1,576 1,576 053 AVIATION LIFE 6,267 6,267 SUPPORT MODS. 054 COMMON ECM 141,685 141,685 EQUIPMENT. 055 COMMON AVIONICS 120,660 120,660 CHANGES. 056 COMMON 3,554 3,554 DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM. 057 ID SYSTEMS..... 41,800 41,800 058 P-8 SERIES..... 9,485 9,485 059 MAGTF EW FOR 14,431 14,431 AVIATION. 060 MQ-8 SERIES.... 1,001 1,001 061 RQ-7 SERIES.... 26,433 26,433 062 V-22 (TILT/ 160,834 160,834 ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY. 063 F-35 STOVL 147,130 147,130 SERIES. 064 F-35 CV SERIES. 31,100 31,100 AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 065 SPARES AND 1,142,461 1,142,461 REPAIR PARTS. AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 066 COMMON GROUND 410,044 410,044 EQUIPMENT. 067 AIRCRAFT 27,450 27,450 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. 068 WAR CONSUMABLES 28,930 28,930 069 OTHER 5,268 5,268 PRODUCTION CHARGES. 070 SPECIAL SUPPORT 60,306 60,306 EQUIPMENT. 071 FIRST 1,775 1,775 DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION. TOTAL 165 17,927,651 17 30,000 182 17,957,651 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMEN T, NAVY. WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 001 TRIDENT II MODS 1,140,865 -14,100 1,126,765 Equipment [-14,100] related to New START treaty implementat ion. SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 002 MISSILE 7,617 7,617 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. STRATEGIC MISSILES 003 TOMAHAWK....... 196 312,456 196 312,456 TACTICAL MISSILES 004 AMRAAM......... 54 95,413 54 95,413 005 SIDEWINDER..... 225 117,208 225 117,208 006 JSOW........... 328 136,794 328 136,794 007 STANDARD 81 367,985 81 367,985 MISSILE. 008 RAM............ 66 67,596 66 67,596 009 HELLFIRE....... 363 33,916 363 33,916 010 STAND OFF 50 6,278 50 6,278 PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM). 011 AERIAL TARGETS. 41,799 41,799 012 OTHER MISSILE 3,538 3,538 SUPPORT. MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 013 ESSM........... 53 76,749 53 76,749 014 HARM MODS...... 143 111,902 143 111,902 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 015 WEAPONS 1,138 1,138 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. 016 FLEET SATELLITE 23,014 23,014 COMM FOLLOW-ON. ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 017 ORDNANCE 84,318 84,318 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 018 SSTD........... 3,978 3,978 019 ASW TARGETS.... 8,031 8,031 MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 020 MK-54 TORPEDO 150 125,898 150 125,898 MODS. 021 MK-48 TORPEDO 108 53,203 108 53,203 ADCAP MODS. 022 QUICKSTRIKE 7,800 7,800 MINE. SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 023 TORPEDO SUPPORT 59,730 59,730 EQUIPMENT. 024 ASW RANGE 4,222 4,222 SUPPORT. DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 025 FIRST 3,963 3,963 DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION. GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 026 SMALL ARMS AND 12,513 12,513 WEAPONS. MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 027 CIWS MODS...... 56,308 56,308 028 COAST GUARD 10,727 10,727 WEAPONS. 029 GUN MOUNT MODS. 72,901 72,901 030 CRUISER 1,943 1 1 1,943 MODERNIZATION WEAPONS. 031 AIRBORNE MINE 19,758 19,758 NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS. SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 033 SPARES AND 52,632 52,632 REPAIR PARTS. TOTAL 1,817 3,122,193 1 -14,100 1,818 3,108,093 WEAPONS PROCUREMEN T, NAVY. PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 001 GENERAL PURPOSE 37,703 37,703 BOMBS. 002 AIRBORNE 65,411 65,411 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES. 003 MACHINE GUN 20,284 20,284 AMMUNITION. 004 PRACTICE BOMBS. 37,870 37,870 005 CARTRIDGES & 53,764 53,764 CART ACTUATED DEVICES. 006 AIR EXPENDABLE 67,194 67,194 COUNTERMEASURE S. 007 JATOS.......... 2,749 2,749 008 LRLAP 6" LONG 3,906 3,906 RANGE ATTACK PROJECTILE. 009 5 INCH/54 GUN 24,151 24,151 AMMUNITION. 010 INTERMEDIATE 33,080 33,080 CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION. 011 OTHER SHIP GUN 40,398 40,398 AMMUNITION. 012 SMALL ARMS & 61,219 61,219 LANDING PARTY AMMO. 013 PYROTECHNIC AND 10,637 10,637 DEMOLITION. 014 AMMUNITION LESS 4,578 4,578 THAN $5 MILLION. MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 015 SMALL ARMS 26,297 26,297 AMMUNITION. 016 LINEAR CHARGES, 6,088 6,088 ALL TYPES. 017 40 MM, ALL 7,644 7,644 TYPES. 018 60MM, ALL TYPES 3,349 3,349 020 120MM, ALL 13,361 13,361 TYPES. 022 GRENADES, ALL 2,149 2,149 TYPES. 023 ROCKETS, ALL 27,465 27,465 TYPES. 026 FUZE, ALL TYPES 26,366 26,366 028 AMMO 8,403 8,403 MODERNIZATION. 029 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,201 5,201 $5 MILLION. TOTAL 589,267 589,267 PROCUREMEN T OF AMMO, NAVY & MC. SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY OTHER WARSHIPS 001 CARRIER 944,866 944,866 REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. 003 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 2,930,704 492,000 2 3,422,704 SUBMARINE. Increase to [492,000] Virginia class. 004 ADVANCE 2,354,612 2,354,612 PROCUREMENT (CY). 005 CVN REFUELING 1,705,424 1,705,424 OVERHAULS. 006 ADVANCE 245,793 245,793 PROCUREMENT (CY). 007 DDG 1000....... 231,694 79,300 310,994 Increase to [79,300] DDG 1000. 008 DDG-51......... 1 1,615,564 1 1,615,564 009 ADVANCE 388,551 388,551 PROCUREMENT (CY). 010 LITTORAL COMBAT 4 1,793,014 4 1,793,014 SHIP. AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 012 AFLOAT FORWARD 1 524,000 1 524,000 STAGING BASE. 014 JOINT HIGH 2,732 2,732 SPEED VESSEL. AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 016 ADVANCE 183,900 183,900 PROCUREMENT (CY). 017 OUTFITTING..... 450,163 450,163 019 LCAC SLEP...... 4 80,987 4 80,987 020 COMPLETION OF 625,800 363,000 988,800 PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS. DDG-51..... [332,000] Joint High [7,600] Speed Vessel. MTS........ [23,400] TOTAL 12 14,077,804 934,300 12 15,012,104 SHIPBUILDI NG & CONVERSION , NAVY. OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 001 LM-2500 GAS 10,180 10,180 TURBINE. 002 ALLISON 501K 5,536 5,536 GAS TURBINE. 003 HYBRID ELECTRIC 16,956 16,956 DRIVE (HED). GENERATORS 004 SURFACE 19,782 19,782 COMBATANT HM&E. NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 005 OTHER 39,509 39,509 NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT. PERISCOPES 006 SUB PERISCOPES 52,515 52,515 & IMAGING EQUIP. OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 007 DDG MOD........ 285,994 285,994 008 FIREFIGHTING 14,389 14,389 EQUIPMENT. 009 COMMAND AND 2,436 2,436 CONTROL SWITCHBOARD. 010 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE 12,700 12,700 011 LCC 19/20 40,329 40,329 EXTENDED SERVICE LIFE PROGRAM. 012 POLLUTION 19,603 19,603 CONTROL EQUIPMENT. 013 SUBMARINE 8,678 8,678 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 014 VIRGINIA CLASS 74,209 74,209 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 015 LCS CLASS 47,078 47,078 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 016 SUBMARINE 37,000 37,000 BATTERIES. 017 LPD CLASS 25,053 25,053 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 018 STRATEGIC 12,986 12,986 PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP. 019 DSSP EQUIPMENT. 2,455 2,455 020 CG 10,539 1 1 10,539 MODERNIZATION. 021 LCAC........... 14,431 14,431 022 UNDERWATER EOD 36,700 36,700 PROGRAMS. 023 ITEMS LESS THAN 119,902 119,902 $5 MILLION. 024 CHEMICAL 3,678 3,678 WARFARE DETECTORS. 025 SUBMARINE LIFE 8,292 8,292 SUPPORT SYSTEM. REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 027 REACTOR 286,744 286,744 COMPONENTS. OCEAN ENGINEERING 028 DIVING AND 8,780 8,780 SALVAGE EQUIPMENT. SMALL BOATS 029 STANDARD BOATS. 36,452 36,452 TRAINING EQUIPMENT 030 OTHER SHIPS 36,145 36,145 TRAINING EQUIPMENT. PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 031 OPERATING 69,368 69,368 FORCES IPE. OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 032 NUCLEAR 106,328 106,328 ALTERATIONS. 033 LCS COMMON 45,966 45,966 MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT. 034 LCS MCM MISSION 59,885 59,885 MODULES. 035 LCS SUW MISSION 37,168 37,168 MODULES. LOGISTIC SUPPORT 036 LSD MIDLIFE.... 77,974 1 1 77,974 SHIP SONARS 038 SPQ-9B RADAR... 27,934 27,934 039 AN/SQQ-89 SURF 83,231 83,231 ASW COMBAT SYSTEM. 040 SSN ACOUSTICS.. 199,438 199,438 041 UNDERSEA 9,394 9,394 WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 042 SONAR SWITCHES 12,953 12,953 AND TRANSDUCERS. 043 ELECTRONIC 8,958 8,958 WARFARE MILDEC. ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 044 SUBMARINE 24,077 24,077 ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM. 045 SSTD........... 11,925 11,925 046 FIXED 94,338 94,338 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM. 047 SURTASS........ 9,680 9,680 048 MARITIME PATROL 18,130 18,130 AND RECONNSAISANCE FORCE. ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 049 AN/SLQ-32...... 203,375 1 1 203,375 RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 050 SHIPBOARD IW 123,656 1 1 123,656 EXPLOIT. 051 AUTOMATED 896 896 IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS). SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 052 SUBMARINE 49,475 49,475 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PROG. OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 053 COOPERATIVE 34,692 34,692 ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY. 054 TRUSTED 396 396 INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS). 055 NAVAL TACTICAL 15,703 15,703 COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS). 056 ATDLS.......... 3,836 3,836 057 NAVY COMMAND 7,201 7,201 AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS). 058 MINESWEEPING 54,400 54,400 SYSTEM REPLACEMENT. 059 SHALLOW WATER 8,548 8,548 MCM. 060 NAVSTAR GPS 11,765 11,765 RECEIVERS (SPACE). 061 AMERICAN FORCES 6,483 6,483 RADIO AND TV SERVICE. 062 STRATEGIC 7,631 7,631 PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP. TRAINING EQUIPMENT 063 OTHER TRAINING 53,644 53,644 EQUIPMENT. AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 064 MATCALS........ 7,461 7,461 065 SHIPBOARD AIR 9,140 9,140 TRAFFIC CONTROL. 066 AUTOMATIC 20,798 20,798 CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM. 067 NATIONAL AIR 19,754 19,754 SPACE SYSTEM. 068 FLEET AIR 8,909 8,909 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS. 069 LANDING SYSTEMS 13,554 13,554 070 ID SYSTEMS..... 38,934 38,934 071 NAVAL MISSION 14,131 14,131 PLANNING SYSTEMS. OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 072 DEPLOYABLE 3,249 3,249 JOINT COMMAND & CONTROL. 073 MARITIME 11,646 11,646 INTEGRATED BROADCAST SYSTEM. 074 TACTICAL/MOBILE 18,189 18,189 C4I SYSTEMS. 075 DCGS-N......... 17,350 17,350 076 CANES.......... 340,567 1 1 340,567 077 RADIAC......... 9,835 9,835 078 CANES-INTELL... 59,652 59,652 079 GPETE.......... 6,253 6,253 080 INTEG COMBAT 4,963 4,963 SYSTEM TEST FACILITY. 081 EMI CONTROL 4,664 4,664 INSTRUMENTATIO N. 082 ITEMS LESS THAN 66,889 66,889 $5 MILLION. SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 084 SHIP 23,877 1 1 23,877 COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION. 086 COMMUNICATIONS 28,001 28,001 ITEMS UNDER $5M. SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 087 SUBMARINE 7,856 7,856 BROADCAST SUPPORT. 088 SUBMARINE 74,376 74,376 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT. SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 089 SATELLITE 27,381 27,381 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS. 090 NAVY MULTIBAND 215,952 1 1 215,952 TERMINAL (NMT). SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 091 JCS 4,463 4,463 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. 092 ELECTRICAL 778 778 POWER SYSTEMS. CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 094 INFO SYSTEMS 133,530 133,530 SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP). 095 MIO INTEL 1,000 1,000 EXPLOITATION TEAM. CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 096 CRYPTOLOGIC 12,251 12,251 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP. OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 097 COAST GUARD 2,893 2,893 EQUIPMENT. SONOBUOYS 099 SONOBUOYS--ALL 179,927 179,927 TYPES. AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 100 WEAPONS RANGE 55,279 55,279 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 101 EXPEDITIONARY 8,792 8,792 AIRFIELDS. 102 AIRCRAFT 11,364 11,364 REARMING EQUIPMENT. 103 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH 59,502 59,502 & RECOVERY EQUIPMENT. 104 METEOROLOGICAL 19,118 19,118 EQUIPMENT. 105 DCRS/DPL....... 1,425 1,425 106 AVIATION LIFE 29,670 29,670 SUPPORT. 107 AIRBORNE MINE 101,554 101,554 COUNTERMEASURE S. 108 LAMPS MK III 18,293 18,293 SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT. 109 PORTABLE 7,969 7,969 ELECTRONIC MAINTENANCE AIDS. 110 OTHER AVIATION 5,215 5,215 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 111 AUTONOMIC 4,827 4,827 LOGISTICS INFORMATION SYSTEM (ALIS). SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 112 NAVAL FIRES 1,188 1,188 CONTROL SYSTEM. 113 GUN FIRE 4,447 4,447 CONTROL EQUIPMENT. SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 114 NATO SEASPARROW 58,368 58,368 115 RAM GMLS....... 491 491 116 SHIP SELF 51,858 51,858 DEFENSE SYSTEM. 117 AEGIS SUPPORT 59,757 59,757 EQUIPMENT. 118 TOMAHAWK 71,559 71,559 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 119 VERTICAL LAUNCH 626 626 SYSTEMS. 120 MARITIME 2,779 2,779 INTEGRATED PLANNING SYSTEM-MIPS. FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 121 STRATEGIC 224,484 -25,919 198,565 MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP. New START [-25,919] treaty implementat ion. ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 122 SSN COMBAT 85,678 85,678 CONTROL SYSTEMS. 123 SUBMARINE ASW 3,913 3,913 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 124 SURFACE ASW 3,909 3,909 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 125 ASW RANGE 28,694 28,694 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 126 EXPLOSIVE 46,586 46,586 ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP. 127 ITEMS LESS THAN 11,933 11,933 $5 MILLION. OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 128 ANTI-SHIP 62,361 1 1 62,361 MISSILE DECOY SYSTEM. 129 SURFACE 41,813 41,813 TRAINING DEVICE MODS. 130 SUBMARINE 26,672 26,672 TRAINING DEVICE MODS. CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 131 PASSENGER 5,600 5,600 CARRYING VEHICLES. 132 GENERAL PURPOSE 3,717 3,717 TRUCKS. 133 CONSTRUCTION & 10,881 10,881 MAINTENANCE EQUIP. 134 FIRE FIGHTING 14,748 14,748 EQUIPMENT. 135 TACTICAL 5,540 5,540 VEHICLES. 136 AMPHIBIOUS 5,741 5,741 EQUIPMENT. 137 POLLUTION 3,852 3,852 CONTROL EQUIPMENT. 138 ITEMS UNDER $5 25,757 25,757 MILLION. 139 PHYSICAL 1,182 1,182 SECURITY VEHICLES. SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 140 MATERIALS 14,250 14,250 HANDLING EQUIPMENT. 141 OTHER SUPPLY 6,401 6,401 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 142 FIRST 5,718 5,718 DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION. 143 SPECIAL PURPOSE 22,597 22,597 SUPPLY SYSTEMS. TRAINING DEVICES 144 TRAINING 22,527 22,527 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 145 COMMAND SUPPORT 50,428 50,428 EQUIPMENT. 146 EDUCATION 2,292 2,292 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 147 MEDICAL SUPPORT 4,925 4,925 EQUIPMENT. 149 NAVAL MIP 3,202 3,202 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 151 OPERATING 24,294 24,294 FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 152 C4ISR EQUIPMENT 4,287 4,287 153 ENVIRONMENTAL 18,276 18,276 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 154 PHYSICAL 134,495 134,495 SECURITY EQUIPMENT. 155 ENTERPRISE 324,327 324,327 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 156A CLASSIFIED 12,140 12,140 PROGRAMS. SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 157 SPARES AND 317,234 -275 316,959 REPAIR PARTS. New START [-275] treaty implementat ion. TOTAL 6,310,257 8 -26,194 8 6,284,063 OTHER PROCUREMEN T, NAVY. PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 001 AAV7A1 PIP..... 32,360 32,360 002 LAV PIP........ 6,003 6,003 ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 003 EXPEDITIONARY 589 589 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM. 004 155MM 3,655 3,655 LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER. 005 HIGH MOBILITY 5,467 5,467 ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM. 006 WEAPONS AND 20,354 20,354 COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION. OTHER SUPPORT 007 MODIFICATION 38,446 38,446 KITS. 008 WEAPONS 4,734 4,734 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM. GUIDED MISSILES 009 GROUND BASED 15,713 15,713 AIR DEFENSE. 010 JAVELIN........ 219 36,175 219 36,175 012 ANTI-ARMOR 1,136 1,136 WEAPONS SYSTEM- HEAVY (AAWS-H). OTHER SUPPORT 013 MODIFICATION 33,976 33,976 KITS. COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 014 UNIT OPERATIONS 16,273 16,273 CENTER. REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 015 REPAIR AND TEST 41,063 41,063 EQUIPMENT. OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 016 COMBAT SUPPORT 2,930 2,930 SYSTEM. COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 018 ITEMS UNDER $5 1,637 1,637 MILLION (COMM & ELEC). 019 AIR OPERATIONS 18,394 18,394 C2 SYSTEMS. RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON- TEL) 020 RADAR SYSTEMS.. 114,051 114,051 021 RQ-21 UAS...... 25 66,612 25 66,612 INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON- TEL) 022 FIRE SUPPORT 3,749 3,749 SYSTEM. 023 INTELLIGENCE 75,979 75,979 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 026 RQ-11 UAV...... 1,653 1,653 027 DCGS-MC........ 9,494 9,494 OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON- TEL) 028 NIGHT VISION 6,171 6,171 EQUIPMENT. OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 029 COMMON COMPUTER 121,955 121,955 RESOURCES. 030 COMMAND POST 83,294 83,294 SYSTEMS. 031 RADIO SYSTEMS.. 74,718 74,718 032 COMM SWITCHING 47,613 47,613 & CONTROL SYSTEMS. 033 COMM & ELEC 19,573 19,573 INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 033A CLASSIFIED 5,659 5,659 PROGRAMS. ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 034 COMMERCIAL 1,039 1,039 PASSENGER VEHICLES. 035 COMMERCIAL 31,050 31,050 CARGO VEHICLES. TACTICAL VEHICLES 036 5/4T TRUCK 36,333 36,333 HMMWV (MYP). 037 MOTOR TRANSPORT 3,137 3,137 MODIFICATIONS. 040 FAMILY OF 27,385 27,385 TACTICAL TRAILERS. OTHER SUPPORT 041 ITEMS LESS THAN 7,016 7,016 $5 MILLION. ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 042 ENVIRONMENTAL 14,377 14,377 CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT. 043 BULK LIQUID 24,864 24,864 EQUIPMENT. 044 TACTICAL FUEL 21,592 21,592 SYSTEMS. 045 POWER EQUIPMENT 61,353 61,353 ASSORTED. 046 AMPHIBIOUS 4,827 4,827 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 047 EOD SYSTEMS.... 40,011 40,011 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 048 PHYSICAL 16,809 16,809 SECURITY EQUIPMENT. 049 GARRISON MOBILE 3,408 3,408 ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE). 050 MATERIAL 48,549 48,549 HANDLING EQUIP. 051 FIRST 190 190 DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION. GENERAL PROPERTY 052 FIELD MEDICAL 23,129 23,129 EQUIPMENT. 053 TRAINING 8,346 8,346 DEVICES. 054 CONTAINER 1,857 1,857 FAMILY. 055 FAMILY OF 36,198 36,198 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. 056 RAPID 2,390 2,390 DEPLOYABLE KITCHEN. OTHER SUPPORT 057 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,525 6,525 $5 MILLION. SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 058 SPARES AND 13,700 13,700 REPAIR PARTS. TOTAL 244 1,343,511 244 1,343,511 PROCUREMEN T, MARINE CORPS. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 001 F-35........... 19 3,060,770 19 3,060,770 002 ADVANCE 363,783 363,783 PROCUREMENT (CY). OTHER AIRLIFT 005 C-130J......... 6 537,517 6 537,517 006 ADVANCE 162,000 162,000 PROCUREMENT (CY). 007 HC-130J........ 1 132,121 1 132,121 008 ADVANCE 88,000 88,000 PROCUREMENT (CY). 009 MC-130J........ 4 389,434 4 389,434 010 ADVANCE 104,000 104,000 PROCUREMENT (CY). HELICOPTERS 015 CV-22 (MYP).... 3 230,798 3 230,798 MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 017 CIVIL AIR 6 2,541 6 2,541 PATROL A/C. OTHER AIRCRAFT 020 TARGET DRONES.. 41 138,669 41 138,669 022 AC-130J........ 5 470,019 5 470,019 024 RQ-4........... 27,000 27,000 027 MQ-9........... 12 272,217 6 80,000 18 352,217 Program [6] [80,000] increase. 028 RQ-4 BLOCK 40 1,747 1,747 PROC. STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 029 B-2A........... 20,019 20,019 030 B-1B........... 132,222 132,222 031 B-52........... 111,002 -500 110,502 B-52 [-500] conversions related to New START treaty implementat ion. 032 LARGE AIRCRAFT 27,197 27,197 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURE S. TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 033 A-10........... 47,598 47,598 034 F-15........... 354,624 354,624 035 F-16........... 11,794 11,794 036 F-22A.......... 285,830 285,830 037 F-35 157,777 157,777 MODIFICATIONS. AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 038 C-5............ 2,456 2,456 039 C-5M........... 1,021,967 1,021,967 042 C-17A.......... 143,197 143,197 043 C-21........... 103 103 044 C-32A.......... 9,780 9,780 045 C-37A.......... 452 452 046 C-130 AMP...... 8 47,300 8 47,300 LRIP Kit [8] [47,300] Procurement. TRAINER AIRCRAFT 047 GLIDER MODS.... 128 128 048 T-6............ 6,427 6,427 049 T-1............ 277 277 050 T-38........... 28,686 28,686 OTHER AIRCRAFT 052 U-2 MODS....... 45,591 45,591 053 KC-10A (ATCA).. 70,918 70,918 054 C-12........... 1,876 1,876 055 MC-12W......... 5,000 5,000 056 C-20 MODS...... 192 192 057 VC-25A MOD..... 263 263 058 C-40........... 6,119 6,119 059 C-130.......... 58,577 15,700 74,277 C-130H [15,700] Propulsion System Engine Upgrades. 061 C-130J MODS.... 10,475 10,475 062 C-135.......... 46,556 46,556 063 COMPASS CALL 34,494 34,494 MODS. 064 RC-135......... 171,813 171,813 065 E-3............ 197,087 197,087 066 E-4............ 14,304 14,304 067 E-8............ 57,472 57,472 068 H-1............ 6,627 6,627 069 H-60........... 27,654 27,654 070 RQ-4 MODS...... 9,313 9,313 071 HC/MC-130 16,300 16,300 MODIFICATIONS. 072 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 6,948 6,948 073 MQ-1 MODS...... 9,734 9,734 074 MQ-9 MODS...... 102,970 102,970 076 RQ-4 GSRA/CSRA 30,000 30,000 MODS. 077 CV-22 MODS..... 23,310 23,310 AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 078 INITIAL SPARES/ 463,285 25 176,000 25 639,285 REPAIR PARTS. F100-229 [25] [165,000] spare engine shortfall. MQ-9 spares [11,000] COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 079 AIRCRAFT 49,140 49,140 REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP. POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 081 B-1............ 3,683 3,683 083 B-2A........... 43,786 43,786 084 B-52........... 7,000 7,000 087 C-17A.......... 81,952 81,952 089 C-135.......... 8,597 8,597 090 F-15........... 2,403 2,403 091 F-16........... 3,455 3,455 092 F-22A.......... 5,911 5,911 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 094 INDUSTRIAL 21,148 21,148 RESPONSIVENESS. WAR CONSUMABLES 095 WAR CONSUMABLES 94,947 94,947 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 096 OTHER 1,242,004 1,242,004 PRODUCTION CHARGES. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 101A CLASSIFIED 75,845 -8,300 67,545 PROGRAMS. Program [-8,300] Decrease. TOTAL 97 11,398,901 39 310,200 136 11,709,101 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMEN T, AIR FORCE. MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT--BAL LISTIC 001 MISSILE 39,104 39,104 REPLACEMENT EQ- BALLISTIC. TACTICAL 002 JASSM.......... 183 291,151 183 291,151 003 SIDEWINDER (AIM- 225 119,904 225 119,904 9X). 004 AMRAAM......... 199 340,015 199 340,015 005 PREDATOR 413 48,548 413 48,548 HELLFIRE MISSILE. 006 SMALL DIAMETER 144 42,347 144 42,347 BOMB. INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 007 INDUSTR'L 752 752 PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION. CLASS IV 009 MM III 21,635 21,635 MODIFICATIONS. 010 AGM-65D 276 276 MAVERICK. 011 AGM-88A HARM... 580 580 012 AIR LAUNCH 6,888 6,888 CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM). 013 SMALL DIAMETER 5,000 5,000 BOMB. MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 014 INITIAL SPARES/ 72,080 -703 71,377 REPAIR PARTS. Spares and [-703] repair parts related to New START treaty implementat ion. SPACE PROGRAMS 015 ADVANCED EHF... 379,586 379,586 016 WIDEBAND 38,398 38,398 GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPA CE). 017 GPS III SPACE 2 403,431 2 403,431 SEGMENT. 018 ADVANCE 74,167 74,167 PROCUREMENT (CY). 019 SPACEBORNE 5,244 5,244 EQUIP (COMSEC). 020 GLOBAL 55,997 55,997 POSITIONING (SPACE). 021 DEF 95,673 95,673 METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE). 022 EVOLVED 5 1,852,900 5 1,852,900 EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE). 023 SBIR HIGH 583,192 583,192 (SPACE). SPECIAL PROGRAMS 029 SPECIAL UPDATE 36,716 36,716 PROGRAMS. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 029A CLASSIFIED 829,702 829,702 PROGRAMS. TOTAL 1,171 5,343,286 -703 1,171 5,342,583 MISSILE PROCUREMEN T, AIR FORCE. PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 001 ROCKETS........ 15,735 15,735 CARTRIDGES 002 CARTRIDGES..... 129,921 129,921 BOMBS 003 PRACTICE BOMBS. 30,840 30,840 004 GENERAL PURPOSE 187,397 187,397 BOMBS. 005 JOINT DIRECT 6,965 188,510 6,965 188,510 ATTACK MUNITION. OTHER ITEMS 006 CAD/PAD........ 35,837 35,837 007 EXPLOSIVE 7,531 7,531 ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD). 008 SPARES AND 499 499 REPAIR PARTS. 009 MODIFICATIONS.. 480 480 010 ITEMS LESS THAN 9,765 9,765 $5 MILLION. FLARES 011 FLARES......... 55,864 55,864 FUZES 013 FUZES.......... 76,037 76,037 SMALL ARMS 014 SMALL ARMS..... 21,026 21,026 TOTAL 6,965 759,442 6,965 759,442 PROCUREMEN T OF AMMUNITION , AIR FORCE. OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 001 PASSENGER 2,048 2,048 CARRYING VEHICLES. CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 002 MEDIUM TACTICAL 8,019 8,019 VEHICLE. 003 CAP VEHICLES... 946 946 004 ITEMS LESS THAN 7,138 7,138 $5 MILLION. SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 005 SECURITY AND 13,093 13,093 TACTICAL VEHICLES. 006 ITEMS LESS THAN 13,983 13,983 $5 MILLION. FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 007 FIRE FIGHTING/ 23,794 23,794 CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES. MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 008 ITEMS LESS THAN 8,669 8,669 $5 MILLION. BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 009 RUNWAY SNOW 6,144 6,144 REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP. 010 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,580 1,580 $5 MILLION. COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMS EC) 012 COMSEC 149,661 149,661 EQUIPMENT. 013 MODIFICATIONS 726 726 (COMSEC). INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 014 INTELLIGENCE 2,789 2,789 TRAINING EQUIPMENT. 015 INTELLIGENCE 31,875 31,875 COMM EQUIPMENT. 016 ADVANCE TECH 452 452 SENSORS. 017 MISSION 14,203 14,203 PLANNING SYSTEMS. ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 018 AIR TRAFFIC 46,232 46,232 CONTROL & LANDING SYS. 019 NATIONAL 11,685 11,685 AIRSPACE SYSTEM. 020 BATTLE CONTROL 19,248 19,248 SYSTEM--FIXED. 021 THEATER AIR 19,292 19,292 CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS. 022 WEATHER 17,166 17,166 OBSERVATION FORECAST. 023 STRATEGIC 22,723 22,723 COMMAND AND CONTROL. 024 CHEYENNE 27,930 27,930 MOUNTAIN COMPLEX. 025 TAC SIGNIT SPT. 217 217 SPCL COMM- ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 027 GENERAL 49,627 49,627 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. 028 AF GLOBAL 13,559 13,559 COMMAND & CONTROL SYS. 029 MOBILITY 11,186 11,186 COMMAND AND CONTROL. 030 AIR FORCE 43,238 43,238 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM. 031 COMBAT TRAINING 10,431 10,431 RANGES. 032 C3 13,769 13,769 COUNTERMEASURE S. 033 GCSS-AF FOS.... 19,138 19,138 034 THEATER BATTLE 8,809 8,809 MGT C2 SYSTEM. 035 AIR & SPACE 26,935 26,935 OPERATIONS CTR- WPN SYS. AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 036 INFORMATION 80,558 80,558 TRANSPORT SYSTEMS. 038 AFNET.......... 97,588 97,588 039 VOICE SYSTEMS.. 8,419 8,419 040 USCENTCOM...... 34,276 34,276 SPACE PROGRAMS 041 SPACE BASED IR 28,235 28,235 SENSOR PGM SPACE. 042 NAVSTAR GPS 2,061 2,061 SPACE. 043 NUDET DETECTION 4,415 4,415 SYS SPACE. 044 AF SATELLITE 30,237 30,237 CONTROL NETWORK SPACE. 045 SPACELIFT RANGE 98,062 98,062 SYSTEM SPACE. 046 MILSATCOM SPACE 105,935 105,935 047 SPACE MODS 37,861 37,861 SPACE. 048 COUNTERSPACE 7,171 7,171 SYSTEM. ORGANIZATION AND BASE 049 TACTICAL C-E 83,537 83,537 EQUIPMENT. 050 COMBAT SURVIVOR 11,884 11,884 EVADER LOCATER. 051 RADIO EQUIPMENT 14,711 14,711 052 CCTV/ 10,275 10,275 AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT. 053 BASE COMM 50,907 50,907 INFRASTRUCTURE. MODIFICATIONS 054 COMM ELECT MODS 55,701 55,701 PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 055 NIGHT VISION 14,524 14,524 GOGGLES. 056 ITEMS LESS THAN 28,655 28,655 $5 MILLION. DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 057 MECHANIZED 9,332 9,332 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP. BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 058 BASE PROCURED 16,762 16,762 EQUIPMENT. 059 CONTINGENCY 33,768 33,768 OPERATIONS. 060 PRODUCTIVITY 2,495 2,495 CAPITAL INVESTMENT. 061 MOBILITY 12,859 12,859 EQUIPMENT. 062 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,954 1,954 $5 MILLION. SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 064 DARP RC135..... 24,528 24,528 065 DCGS-AF........ 137,819 137,819 067 SPECIAL UPDATE 479,586 479,586 PROGRAM. 068 DEFENSE SPACE 45,159 45,159 RECONNAISSANCE PROG.. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 068A CLASSIFIED 14,519,256 14,519,256 PROGRAMS. SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 069 SPARES AND 25,746 25,746 REPAIR PARTS. TOTAL 16,760,581 16,760,581 OTHER PROCUREMEN T, AIR FORCE. PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 038 MAJOR 37,345 37,345 EQUIPMENT, OSD. 039 MAJOR 16,678 16,678 EQUIPMENT, INTELLIGENCE. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 037 INFORMATION 14,363 14,363 SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP). MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 041 MAJOR 35,259 35,259 EQUIPMENT, WHS. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 008 INFORMATION 16,189 16,189 SYSTEMS SECURITY. 011 TELEPORT 66,075 66,075 PROGRAM. 012 ITEMS LESS THAN 83,881 83,881 $5 MILLION. 013 NET CENTRIC 2,572 2,572 ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES). 014 DEFENSE 125,557 125,557 INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK. 016 CYBER SECURITY 16,941 16,941 INITIATIVE. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 017 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 13,137 13,137 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 021 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 5,020 5,020 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 001 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,291 1,291 $5 MILLION. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 040 MAJOR 14,792 14,792 EQUIPMENT, TJS. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 025 THAAD.......... 36 581,005 36 581,005 026 AEGIS BMD...... 52 580,814 52 580,814 027 BMDS AN/TPY-2 62,000 62,000 RADARS. 028 AEGIS ASHORE 1 131,400 1 131,400 PHASE III. 030 IRON DOME...... 1 220,309 1 220,309 032 ADVANCE 107,000 107,000 PROCUREMENT (CY). Advanced [107,000] Procurement of 14 GBIs, beginning with booster motor sets. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 003 PERSONNEL 47,201 47,201 ADMINISTRATION. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 022 VEHICLES....... 2 100 2 100 023 OTHER MAJOR 3 13,395 3 13,395 EQUIPMENT. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY 020 EQUIPMENT...... 978 978 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 019 AUTOMATION/ 1,454 1,454 EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS. MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 002 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 5,711 5,711 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 018 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 5 15,414 5 15,414 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 041A CLASSIFIED 544,272 544,272 PROGRAMS. AVIATION PROGRAMS 043 ROTARY WING 112,456 112,456 UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT. 044 MH-60 81,457 81,457 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM. 045 NON-STANDARD 2,650 2,650 AVIATION. 046 U-28........... 56,208 56,208 047 MH-47 CHINOOK.. 19,766 19,766 048 RQ-11 UNMANNED 850 850 AERIAL VEHICLE. 049 CV-22 3 98,927 3 98,927 MODIFICATION. 050 MQ-1 UNMANNED 20,576 20,576 AERIAL VEHICLE. 051 MQ-9 UNMANNED 1,893 1,893 AERIAL VEHICLE. 053 STUASL0........ 13,166 13,166 054 PRECISION 107,687 107,687 STRIKE PACKAGE. 055 AC/MC-130J..... 51,870 51,870 057 C-130 71,940 71,940 MODIFICATIONS. SHIPBUILDING 059 UNDERWATER 37,439 37,439 SYSTEMS. AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 061 ORDNANCE ITEMS 159,029 159,029 <$5M. OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 064 INTELLIGENCE 79,819 79,819 SYSTEMS. 066 DISTRIBUTED 14,906 14,906 COMMON GROUND/ SURFACE SYSTEMS. 068 OTHER ITEMS 81,711 81,711 <$5M. 069 COMBATANT CRAFT 35,053 35,053 SYSTEMS. 072 SPECIAL 41,526 41,526 PROGRAMS. 073 TACTICAL 43,353 43,353 VEHICLES. 074 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 210,540 210,540 <$5M. 076 COMBAT MISSION 20,000 20,000 REQUIREMENTS. 080 GLOBAL VIDEO 6,645 6,645 SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES. 081 OPERATIONAL 25,581 25,581 ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE. 087 OPERATIONAL 191,061 191,061 ENHANCEMENTS. CBDP 089 INSTALLATION 14,271 14,271 FORCE PROTECTION. 090 INDIVIDUAL 101,667 101,667 PROTECTION. 092 JOINT BIO 13,447 13,447 DEFENSE PROGRAM (MEDICAL). 093 COLLECTIVE 20,896 20,896 PROTECTION. 094 CONTAMINATION 144,540 144,540 AVOIDANCE. TOTAL 103 4,534,083 107,000 103 4,641,083 PROCUREMEN T, DEFENSE- WIDE. JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 001 JOINT URGENT 98,800 -98,800 0 OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND. Program [-98,800] reduction. TOTAL 98,800 -98,800 0 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONA L NEEDS FUND. TOTAL 229,104 98,227,168 -1,327 1,439,003 227,777 99,666,171 PROCUREMEN T. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 001A SATURN ARCH (MIP)................. 4 48,000 4 48,000 003 MQ-1 UAV.......................... 4 31,988 4 31,988 ROTARY 008 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD. 4 142,000 4 142,000 010 KIOWA WARRIOR WRA................. 14 163,800 14 163,800 013 CH-47 HELICOPTER.................. 10 386,000 10 386,000 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 36 771,788 36 771,788 ARMY. MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 002 MSE MISSILE....................... 25,887 25,887 Restoral of funds based on [25,887] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 003 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY.............. 550 54,000 550 54,000 ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 007 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)........ 383 39,045 383 39,045 009A ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)-- 38 35,600 38 35,600 SYS SUM. TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 971 128,645 25,887 971 154,532 ARMY. PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 033 M16 RIFLE MODS.................... 15,422 15,422 Restoral of funds based on [15,422] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, 15,422 15,422 ARMY. PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 002 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES............ 4,400 4,400 004 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES........... 1,500 1,500 005 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES........... 5,000 5,000 10,000 Restoral of funds based on [5,000] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. 008 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES.............. 60,000 60,000 MORTAR AMMUNITION 010 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 5,000 5,000 ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 014 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 10,000 20,000 30,000 105MM, ALL TYPES. Restoral of funds based on [20,000] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. 015 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL 10,000 10,000 TYPES. 016 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982.... 120 11,000 120 11,000 MINES 018 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL 9,482 9,482 TYPES. Restoral of funds based on [9,482] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. ROCKETS 021 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES....... 57,000 57,000 OTHER AMMUNITION 022 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 4,000 4,000 023 GRENADES, ALL TYPES............... 3,000 3,000 024 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES................ 8,000 8,000 MISCELLANEOUS 028 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES................. 2,000 2,000 TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 120 180,900 34,482 120 215,382 AMMUNITION, ARMY. OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 003 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH 2,500 2,500 (FMTV). Restoral of funds based on [2,500] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. 005 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES 2,050 2,050 (FHTV). Restoral of funds based on [2,050] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. 013 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED 321,040 241,556 562,596 (MRAP) MODS. Restoral of funds based on [241,556] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS 060 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 25,000 25,000 MOD PROGRAM. ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 067 DCGS-A (MIP)...................... 7,200 7,200 071 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND 5,980 5,980 COLL(CHARCS). ELECT EQUIP--ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 074 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR.. 67 57,800 25,455 67 83,255 Restoral of funds based on [25,455] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. 078 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE 15,300 15,300 CAPABILITIE. 079 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY 4,221 4,221 COUNTERMEASURES. ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 091 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP.......... 34 1,834 34 1,834 093 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER 8,400 8,400 RADARS). Restoral of funds based on [8,400] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. 096 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR)........ 137 21,000 137 21,000 098 COUNTERFIRE RADARS................ 4 85,830 4 85,830 ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 110 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS)..... 3,200 3,200 Restoral of funds based on [3,200] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. 112 SINGLE ARMY LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE 5,160 5,160 (SALE). Restoral of funds based on [5,160] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT 15,000 15,000 (FNLE). Restoral of funds based on [15,000] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. 127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS)........ 24,932 24,932 Restoral of funds based on [24,932] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 137 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT 3,565 3,565 (EOD EQPMT). Restoral of funds based on [3,565] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 146 FORCE PROVIDER.................... 3 51,654 3 51,654 147 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT........... 18 6,264 18 6,264 PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 152 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & 2,119 2,119 WATER. Restoral of funds based on [2,119] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. TRAINING EQUIPMENT 176 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT... 7,000 7,000 Restoral of funds based on [7,000] offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 263 603,123 340,937 263 944,060 JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 001 ATTACK THE NETWORK................ 417,700 417,700 JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT 002 DEFEAT THE DEVICE................. 248,886 248,886 FORCE TRAINING 003 TRAIN THE FORCE................... 106,000 106,000 STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 004 OPERATIONS........................ 227,414 227,414 TOTAL JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE 1,000,000 1,000,000 DEV DEFEAT FUND. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 011 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/AH-1Z)........ 1 29,520 1 29,520 OTHER AIRCRAFT 026 MQ-8 UAV.......................... 1 13,100 1 13,100 MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 031 AV-8 SERIES....................... 57,652 57,652 033 F-18 SERIES....................... 35,500 35,500 039 EP-3 SERIES....................... 2,700 2,700 049 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT.......... 3,375 3,375 054 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT.............. 49,183 49,183 055 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES........... 4,190 4,190 059 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION............. 20,700 20,700 AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 065 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 24,776 24,776 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 2 240,696 2 240,696 NAVY. WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 009 HELLFIRE.......................... 270 27,000 270 27,000 009A LASER MAVERICK.................... 500 58,000 500 58,000 010 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED 9 1,500 9 1,500 MUNITIONS (SOPGM). TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, 779 86,500 779 86,500 NAVY. PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 11,424 11,424 002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES....... 30,332 30,332 003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION............ 8,282 8,282 006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES.... 31,884 31,884 011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION......... 409 409 012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO... 11,976 11,976 013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION........ 2,447 2,447 014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION... 7,692 7,692 MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION............. 13,461 13,461 016 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES......... 3,310 3,310 017 40 MM, ALL TYPES.................. 6,244 6,244 018 60MM, ALL TYPES................... 3,368 3,368 019 81MM, ALL TYPES................... 9,162 9,162 020 120MM, ALL TYPES.................. 10,266 10,266 021 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES............... 1,887 1,887 022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES............... 1,611 1,611 023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES................ 37,459 37,459 024 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES.............. 970 970 025 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 418 418 026 FUZE, ALL TYPES................... 14,219 14,219 TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, 206,821 206,821 NAVY & MC. OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 135 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 17,968 17,968 TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY 17,968 17,968 PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS GUIDED MISSILES 010 JAVELIN........................... 180 29,334 180 29,334 011 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW................. 105 105 OTHER SUPPORT 013 MODIFICATION KITS................. 16,081 16,081 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 015 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT......... 16,081 16,081 OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 017 MODIFICATION KITS................. 2,831 2,831 COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON- TEL) 018 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & 8,170 8,170 ELEC). INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 023 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.... 2,700 2,700 026 RQ-11 UAV......................... 2,830 2,830 OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 029 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES......... 4,866 4,866 030 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS.............. 265 265 ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 042 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT 114 114 043 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT............. 523 523 044 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS............. 365 365 045 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED.......... 2,004 2,004 047 EOD SYSTEMS....................... 42,930 42,930 GENERAL PROPERTY 055 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.. 385 385 TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE 180 129,584 180 129,584 CORPS. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 032 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED 94,050 94,050 COUNTERMEASURES. OTHER AIRCRAFT 052 U-2 MODS.......................... 11,300 11,300 059 C-130............................. 1,618 1,618 064 RC-135............................ 2,700 2,700 COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 079 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP 6,000 6,000 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 115,668 115,668 AIR FORCE. MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 005 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE......... 211 24,200 211 24,200 TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 211 24,200 211 24,200 AIR FORCE. PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 001 ROCKETS........................... 326 326 CARTRIDGES 002 CARTRIDGES........................ 17,634 17,634 BOMBS 004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 37,514 37,514 005 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION...... 2,879 84,459 2,879 84,459 FLARES 011 FLARES............................ 14,973 14,973 012 FUZES............................. 3,859 3,859 SMALL ARMS 014 SMALL ARMS........................ 1,200 1,200 TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 2,879 159,965 2,879 159,965 AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE. OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 022 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST...... 1,800 1,800 SPACE PROGRAMS 046 MILSATCOM SPACE................... 5,695 5,695 BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 059 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS............ 60,600 60,600 061 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT................ 68,000 68,000 SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 068 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. 58,250 58,250 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 068A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 2,380,501 2,380,501 TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR 2,574,846 2,574,846 FORCE. PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 011 TELEPORT PROGRAM.................. 4,760 4,760 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 041A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 78,986 78,986 AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 060 ORDNANCE REPLENISHMENT............ 25 2,841 25 2,841 OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 064 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.............. 1 13,300 1 13,300 082 SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL 53 8,034 53 8,034 SYSTEMS. 087 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.......... 126 3,354 126 3,354 TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE- 205 111,275 205 111,275 WIDE. JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS 15,000 -15,000 0 FUND. Program reduction............. [-15,000] TOTAL JOINT URGENT 15,000 -15,000 0 OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND. NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT UNDISTRIBUTED 999 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 400,000 400,000 Program increase.............. [400,000] TOTAL NATIONAL GUARD & 400,000 400,000 RESERVE EQUIPMENT. TOTAL PROCUREMENT............ 5,646 6,366,979 801,728 5,646 7,168,707 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 House Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ......................... BASIC RESEARCH 001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 21,803 21,803 INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. 002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 221,901 221,901 003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 79,359 79,359 INITIATIVES. 004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 113,662 113,662 RESEARCH CENTERS. ......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 436,725 436,725 ......................... ......................... APPLIED RESEARCH 005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY....... 26,585 26,585 006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 43,170 43,170 SURVIVABILITY. 007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP................ 36,293 36,293 008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY........ 55,615 55,615 009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 17,585 17,585 TECHNOLOGY. 010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY......... 51,528 51,528 011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 26,162 26,162 012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 24,063 24,063 SIMULATION. 013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 64,589 64,589 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY. 014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY...... 68,300 68,300 015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 4,490 4,490 EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY. 016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 7,818 7,818 PROGRAM. 017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 37,798 37,798 TECHNOLOGY. 018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC 59,021 59,021 DEVICES. 019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.... 43,426 43,426 020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS........ 20,574 20,574 021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 21,339 21,339 TECHNOLOGY. 022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 20,316 20,316 TECHNOLOGY. 023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 34,209 34,209 COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. 024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 10,439 10,439 TECHNOLOGY. 025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 70,064 70,064 TECHNOLOGY. 026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING 17,654 17,654 TECHNOLOGY. 027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY...... 31,546 31,546 028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY......... 93,340 93,340 ......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 885,924 885,924 RESEARCH. ......................... ......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 56,056 56,056 TECHNOLOGY. 030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 62,032 62,032 031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 81,080 81,080 TECHNOLOGY. 032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 63,919 63,919 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 97,043 97,043 AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 034 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED 5,866 5,866 TECHNOLOGY. 035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 7,800 7,800 TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 036 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED 40,416 40,416 TECHNOLOGY. 037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............... 9,166 9,166 038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & 13,627 13,627 SIMULATION SYSTEMS. 039 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............... 10,667 10,667 041 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 15,054 15,054 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 042 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............... 3,194 3,194 043 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............... 2,367 2,367 044 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 25,348 25,348 TECHNOLOGY. 045 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED 64,009 64,009 TECHNOLOGY. 046 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............... 11,083 11,083 047 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 180,662 180,662 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM. 048 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 22,806 22,806 BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 049 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,030 5,030 PROGRAM. 050 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 36,407 36,407 TECHNOLOGY. 051 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 11,745 11,745 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS. 052 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 23,717 23,717 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 053 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER 33,012 33,012 SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY. ......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 882,106 882,106 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 054 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS 15,301 15,301 INTEGRATION. 055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 13,592 13,592 INTEGRATION. 056 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 10,625 10,625 BARRIER--ADV DEV. 058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 30,612 30,612 AMMUNITION. 059 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT 49,989 49,989 SYSTEM (ATAS). 060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 6,703 6,703 SURVIVABILITY. 061 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 6,894 6,894 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV DEV. 062 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 9,066 9,066 ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT. 063 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2,633 2,633 TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL. 064 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION 272,384 272,384 NETWORK-TACTICAL--DEM/VAL. 065 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 3,874 3,874 DEVELOPMENT. 066 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV.......... 5,018 5,018 067 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 11,556 11,556 EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV. 069 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV... 15,603 15,603 070 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 14,159 14,159 DEVELOPMENT. 071 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 79 79 SERVICE. 072 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 55,605 55,605 INITIATIVES. 074 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 79,232 79,232 CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2- INTERCEPT (IFPC2). 075 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE 4,476 4,476 (BUDGET ACTIVITY 4). 076 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS............. 28,991 -28,000 991 ......................... LEMV program reduction. [-28,000] ......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 636,392 -28,000 608,392 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES. ......................... ......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 077 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS.......... 76,588 76,588 078 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS.... 73,309 73,309 079 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 154,621 154,621 DEVELOPMENT. 080 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO....... 31,826 31,826 081 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 23,341 23,341 VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR). 082 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM. 4,839 4,839 083 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............... 23,841 23,841 084 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS... 79,855 11,000 90,855 ......................... Transfer from WTCV line [11,000] 15--XM25 development. 085 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES... 2,140 2,140 086 0604611A JAVELIN.................... 5,002 5,002 087 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 21,321 21,321 VEHICLES. 088 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL........ 514 514 093 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 43,405 43,405 DEV. 094 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 1,939 1,939 AND EQUIPMENT. 095 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 18,980 18,980 DEVICES--ENG DEV. 097 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 18,294 18,294 CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE-- ENG DEV. 098 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 17,013 17,013 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 099 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 6,701 6,701 DEVELOPMENT. 100 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 14,575 14,575 SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG DEV. 101 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 27,634 27,634 TRAINER (CATT) CORE. 102 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 193,748 193,748 INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION. 103 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG 15,721 15,721 DEV. 104 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 41,703 41,703 EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV. 105 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 7,379 7,379 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS-- ENG DEV. 106 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 39,468 39,468 BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV. 107 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 92,285 92,285 ENG DEV. 108 0604814A ARTILLERY MUNITIONS--EMD... 8,209 8,209 109 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 22,958 22,958 CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE. 110 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT.......... 1,549 1,549 111 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 17,342 17,342 BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS). 112 0604823A FIREFINDER................. 47,221 47,221 113 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 48,477 48,477 DEM/VAL. 114 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD..... 80,613 80,613 117 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 68,814 68,814 DEVELOPMENT. 118 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 137,290 137,290 PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A). 119 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 116,298 116,298 VEHICLE (AMPV). 120 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 68,148 68,148 CENTER (JTNC). 121 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 33,219 33,219 SYSTEM (JTRS). 122 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 15,127 15,127 (JAGM). 124 0605456A PAC-3/MSE MISSILE.......... 68,843 68,843 125 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 364,649 364,649 MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD). 126 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE...... 592,201 592,201 127 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR....... 10,382 10,382 128 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 21,143 21,143 INTEGRATION (MIP). 129 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 84,230 84,230 VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH. 130 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............... 3,465 3,465 131 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 10,806 10,806 DEVELOPMENT. ......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 2,857,026 11,000 2,868,026 DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION. ......................... ......................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 132 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 16,934 16,934 DEVELOPMENT. 133 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 13,488 13,488 134 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 46,672 46,672 135 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER......... 11,919 11,919 136 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL....... 193,658 193,658 137 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 37,158 37,158 PROGRAM. 139 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 340,659 340,659 FACILITIES. 140 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 66,061 66,061 INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS. 141 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 43,280 43,280 ANALYSIS. 143 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION..... 6,025 6,025 144 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 7,349 7,349 RDT&E ACTIVITIES. 145 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS.. 19,809 19,809 146 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 5,941 5,941 ITEMS. 147 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 55,504 55,504 TESTING. 148 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER..... 65,274 65,274 149 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 1,283 1,283 COLLABORATION & INTEG. 150 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES..... 82,035 82,035 151 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 33,853 33,853 ACTIVITIES. 152 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, 53,340 53,340 EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY. 153 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5,193 5,193 TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT. 154 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 54,175 54,175 ......................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 1,159,610 1,159,610 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT. ......................... ......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 156 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 110,576 110,576 PROGRAM. 157 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION....... 3,717 3,717 159 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 70,053 70,053 160 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT 98,450 -30,000 68,450 OFFICE. ......................... JLENS program reduction [-30,000] 161 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY 30,940 30,940 TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM. 162 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT 177,532 177,532 PROGRAMS. 163 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.... 36,495 36,495 164 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 257,187 257,187 PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. 165 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 315 315 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 166 0203758A DIGITIZATION............... 6,186 6,186 167 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT 1,578 1,578 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 168 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 62,100 62,100 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. 169 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............... 18,778 18,778 170 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 7,108 7,108 SYSTEM. 173 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 7,600 7,600 ACTIVITIES. 174 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 9,357 9,357 SECURITY PROGRAM. 175 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 41,225 41,225 SYSTEM. 176 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 18,197 18,197 (SPACE). 177 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 14,215 14,215 CONTROL SYSTEM. 179 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 33,533 33,533 VEHICLES. 180 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 27,622 27,622 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 181 0305219A MQ-1C GRAY EAGLE UAS....... 10,901 10,901 182 0305232A RQ-11 UAV.................. 2,321 2,321 183 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................... 12,031 12,031 185 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 12,449 12,449 INTELLIGENCE. 186 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 56,136 56,136 PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES. 186A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 4,717 4,717 ......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,131,319 -30,000 1,101,319 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 7,989,102 -47,000 7,942,102 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY. ......................... ......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ......................... BASIC RESEARCH 001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 112,617 10,000 122,617 INITIATIVES. ......................... Program increase....... [10,000] 002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 18,230 18,230 INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. 003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 484,459 484,459 ......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 615,306 10,000 625,306 ......................... ......................... APPLIED RESEARCH 004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 104,513 104,513 RESEARCH. 005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 145,307 145,307 RESEARCH. 006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE 47,334 47,334 TECHNOLOGY. 007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 34,163 34,163 RESEARCH. 008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 49,689 49,689 APPLIED RESEARCH. 009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 97,701 97,701 APPLIED RESEARCH. 010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 45,685 18,000 63,685 ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH. ......................... AGOR mid life refit.... [18,000] 011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,060 6,060 APPLIED RESEARCH. 012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 103,050 103,050 RESEARCH. 013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 169,710 169,710 APPLIED RESEARCH. 014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 31,326 31,326 WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH. ......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 834,538 18,000 852,538 RESEARCH. ......................... ......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 015 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 48,201 48,201 TECHNOLOGY. 016 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 28,328 28,328 TECHNOLOGY. 019 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 56,179 56,179 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 020 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 132,400 132,400 DEMONSTRATION (ATD). 021 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 11,854 11,854 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 022 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 247,931 247,931 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 023 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,760 4,760 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 025 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 51,463 51,463 EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS. 026 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 2,000 2,000 WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. ......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 583,116 583,116 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 027 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 42,246 42,246 APPLICATIONS. 028 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY..... 5,591 5,591 029 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,262 3,262 AND CONTROL. 030 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS........... 74 74 031 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.... 7,964 7,964 032 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 5,257 5,257 RECONNAISSANCE. 033 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 1,570 1,570 TECHNOLOGY. 034 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 168,040 168,040 MINE COUNTERMEASURES. 035 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 88,649 88,649 DEFENSE. 036 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 83,902 83,902 037 0603525N PILOT FISH................. 108,713 108,713 038 0603527N RETRACT LARCH.............. 9,316 9,316 039 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER............ 77,108 77,108 040 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL....... 762 762 041 0603553N SURFACE ASW................ 2,349 2,349 042 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 852,977 22,000 874,977 DEVELOPMENT. ......................... Unmanned Underwater [22,000] Vehicle Development. 043 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 8,764 8,764 SYSTEMS. 044 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 20,501 20,501 DESIGN. 045 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 27,052 27,052 FEASIBILITY STUDIES. 046 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 428,933 428,933 SYSTEMS. 047 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY 27,154 27,154 SYSTEMS. 048 0603576N CHALK EAGLE................ 519,140 519,140 049 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS). 406,389 406,389 050 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION.. 36,570 36,570 051 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 8,404 8,404 052 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 136,967 136,967 VEHICLES. 053 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 1,489 1,489 SUPPORT SYSTEM. 054 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 38,422 38,422 ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT. 055 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT..... 69,312 69,312 056 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 9,196 9,196 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 057 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION... 18,850 18,850 058 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM........ 45,618 45,618 059 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT..... 3,019 3,019 060 0603734N CHALK CORAL................ 144,951 144,951 061 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY. 5,797 5,797 062 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE.............. 308,131 308,131 063 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA.............. 195,189 195,189 064 0603751N RETRACT ELM................ 56,358 56,358 065 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN............. 55,378 55,378 066 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES.......... 48,842 48,842 067 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 7,509 7,509 DEVELOPMENT. 068 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY..... 5,075 5,075 069 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 51,178 51,178 TESTING. 070 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 205,615 205,615 AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/ VAL. 072 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 37,227 37,227 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM). 073 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION 169 169 OPTIMIZATION. 074 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO 20,874 -10,000 10,874 CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW). ......................... Schedule delay......... [-10,000] 075 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 2,257 2,257 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 076 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 38,327 38,327 WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ ENGINEERING SUPPORT. 077 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 135,985 135,985 WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT. 078 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 50,362 50,362 VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH. 079 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 8,448 8,448 MIP. 080 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 153 153 DEVELOPMENT--MIP. ......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,641,385 12,000 4,653,385 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES. ......................... ......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 081 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT..... 40,558 40,558 082 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.... 35,825 35,825 083 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT...... 99,891 99,891 084 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 17,565 17,565 UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT. 085 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 4,026 4,026 ENGINEERING. 086 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.. 1,791 1,791 087 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM..... 11,725 11,725 088 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.... 68,463 68,463 089 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE........... 152,041 152,041 090 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............... 47,123 47,123 091 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.... 30,208 30,208 092 0604262N V-22A...................... 43,084 43,084 093 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 11,401 11,401 DEVELOPMENT. 094 0604269N EA-18...................... 11,138 11,138 095 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 34,964 34,964 DEVELOPMENT. 096 0604273N VH-71A EXECUTIVE HELO 94,238 94,238 DEVELOPMENT. 097 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 257,796 257,796 (NGJ). 098 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 3,302 3,302 SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY). 099 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 240,298 240,298 SYSTEM ENGINEERING. 100 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 1,214 1,214 INTEGRATION. 101 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB).. 46,007 46,007 102 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 75,592 75,592 IMPROVEMENTS. 103 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............... 117,854 117,854 104 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK 10,080 10,080 FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION. 105 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 21,413 21,413 CONTROL--COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING. 106 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED 146,683 146,683 AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM. 107 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 275,871 275,871 SENSORS. 108 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 89,672 89,672 MODERNIZATION. 109 0604504N AIR CONTROL................ 13,754 13,754 110 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS. 69,615 69,615 112 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN............. 121,566 121,566 113 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 49,143 49,143 SYSTEM. 114 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE 155,254 155,254 FIRE T&E. 115 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 3,689 3,689 RESOURCES. 116 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT........... 5,041 5,041 117 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 26,444 26,444 DEVELOPMENT. 118 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 8,897 8,897 ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT. 119 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 6,233 6,233 SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS. 120 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 442 442 SYSTEMS. 121 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & 130,360 130,360 CONTROL). 122 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 50,209 50,209 HARD KILL). 123 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 164,799 164,799 SOFT KILL/EW). 124 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING... 1,984 1,984 125 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT........ 9,458 9,458 126 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM....... 51,430 51,430 127 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 512,631 512,631 EMD. 128 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 534,187 534,187 EMD. 129 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5,564 5,564 DEVELOPMENT. 130 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 69,659 69,659 DEVELOPMENT. 132 0605212N CH-53K RDTE................ 503,180 503,180 133 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 5,500 5,500 (JAGM). 134 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 317,358 317,358 AIRCRAFT (MMA). 135 0204202N DDG-1000................... 187,910 187,910 136 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 2,140 2,140 MIP. 137 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 9,406 9,406 SYSTEMS. 138 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS 22,800 22,800 PROGRAM. ......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 5,028,476 5,028,476 DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION. ......................... ......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 139 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 43,261 43,261 DEVELOPMENT. 140 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 71,872 71,872 141 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 38,033 38,033 142 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 1,352 1,352 MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION. 143 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 5,566 5,566 SUPPORT--NAVY. 144 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES.. 48,345 48,345 146 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 637 637 SERVICES. 147 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 76,585 76,585 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT. 148 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT 3,221 3,221 149 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 72,725 72,725 TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT. 150 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 141,778 141,778 SUPPORT. 151 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 331,219 331,219 152 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 16,565 16,565 EVALUATION CAPABILITY. 153 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 3,265 3,265 WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT. 154 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 7,134 7,134 RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT. 155 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 24,082 24,082 SUPPORT. 156 0305885N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 497 497 ACTIVITIES. ......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 886,137 886,137 SUPPORT. ......................... ......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 159 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS...... 699 699 160 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE 20,961 20,000 40,961 (UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT. ......................... X-47B Aerial Refueling [20,000] Test & Evaluation. 162 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS.. 35 35 163 0605525N CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY 2,460 2,460 (COD) FOLLOW ON. 164 0605555N STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT. 9,757 9,757 165 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 98,057 23,900 121,957 SYSTEM SUPPORT. ......................... Reentry System [23,900] Applications and Strategic Guidance Applications. 166 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 31,768 31,768 PROGRAM. 167 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE 1,464 1,464 DEVELOPMENT. 168 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 21,729 21,729 COMMUNICATIONS. 169 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION 13,561 13,561 (RTT). 170 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS........... 131,118 131,118 171 0204152N E-2 SQUADRONS.............. 1,971 1,971 172 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 46,155 46,155 (TACTICAL). 173 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT............ 2,374 2,374 174 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 12,407 12,407 MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC). 175 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 41,609 41,609 SYSTEM. 176 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT 7,240 7,240 UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT). 177 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 78,208 78,208 RADAR (G/ATOR). 178 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 45,124 45,124 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 179 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT. 2,703 2,703 180 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 19,563 19,563 READINESS SUPPORT. 181 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT........... 13,586 13,586 182 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS........ 197,538 197,538 183 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 31,863 31,863 INTEGRATION. 184 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP................ 12,806 12,806 185 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS...... 88,607 88,607 187 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 116,928 116,928 SYSTEMS. 188 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS 178,753 178,753 SYSTEMS. 189 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 139,594 -25,800 113,794 SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS. ......................... Marine personnel [-20,800] carrier--funding ahead of need. ......................... Precision extended [-5,000] range munition program reduction. 190 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 42,647 42,647 SERVICES SUPPORT. 191 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 34,394 34,394 ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP). 192 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 39,159 39,159 193 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 2,613 2,613 TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM). 194 0208058N JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL 986 986 (JHSV). 199 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 66,231 66,231 (SPACE). 200 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK 24,476 24,476 ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES). 201 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 23,531 23,531 SECURITY PROGRAM. 206 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND 742 742 OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE (METOC). 207 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 4,804 4,804 PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES. 208 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,381 8,381 VEHICLES. 211 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,535 5,535 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 212 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 19,718 19,718 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 213 0305220N RQ-4 UAV................... 375,235 375,235 214 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................... 48,713 48,713 215 0305232M RQ-11 UAV.................. 102 102 216 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................... 710 710 217 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 5,013 5,013 UAS (STUASL0). 219 0305239M RQ-21A..................... 11,122 11,122 220 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 28,851 28,851 DEVELOPMENT. 221 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 5,116 5,116 SUPPORT. 222 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 28,042 28,042 223 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.... 50,933 50,933 224 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 4,998 4,998 (MARITECH). 224A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 1,185,132 1,185,132 ......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 3,385,822 18,100 3,403,922 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 15,974,780 58,100 16,032,880 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY. ......................... ......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ......................... BASIC RESEARCH 001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 373,151 373,151 002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 138,333 138,333 INITIATIVES. 003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH 13,286 13,286 INITIATIVES. ......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 524,770 524,770 ......................... ......................... APPLIED RESEARCH 004 0602102F MATERIALS.................. 116,846 116,846 005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 119,672 119,672 TECHNOLOGIES. 006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED 89,483 89,483 RESEARCH. 007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION....... 197,546 197,546 008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS.......... 127,539 127,539 009 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY........... 104,063 104,063 010 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 81,521 81,521 011 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY. 112,845 112,845 012 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 138,161 138,161 SCIENCES AND METHODS. 013 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH. 40,217 40,217 ......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,127,893 1,127,893 RESEARCH. ......................... ......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 014 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 39,572 10,000 49,572 WEAPON SYSTEMS. ......................... Program increase....... [10,000] 015 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 12,800 12,800 TECHNOLOGY (S&T). 016 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS. 30,579 30,579 017 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 77,347 77,347 DEMO. 018 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 149,321 149,321 POWER TECHNOLOGY. 019 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 49,128 49,128 TECHNOLOGY. 020 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 68,071 68,071 TECHNOLOGY. 021 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 26,299 26,299 SYSTEM (MSSS). 022 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 20,967 20,967 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 023 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 33,996 33,996 TECHNOLOGY. 024 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 19,000 19,000 025 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 41,353 41,353 PROGRAM. 026 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 49,093 49,093 DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION. ......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 617,526 10,000 627,526 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 028 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 3,983 3,983 DEVELOPMENT. 029 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT 3,874 3,874 032 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY... 27,024 27,024 033 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 15,899 15,899 TECHNOLOGY. 034 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,568 4,568 DEVELOPMENT. 035 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE 379 379 COOPERATIVE R&D. 036 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM 28,764 28,764 (SPP). 038 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC 86,737 86,737 MISSILE--DEM/VAL. 040 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION--DEM/ 953 953 VAL. 042 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE.......... 379,437 379,437 044 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER........ 2,606 2,606 045 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 103 103 TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM. 047 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 16,018 16,018 MATURATION. 049 0604458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER..... 58,861 58,861 050 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 2,500 2,500 MUNITION. 051 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE 21,175 21,175 DEVELOPMENT. 053 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.... 13,636 13,636 054 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 2,799 2,799 STRATCOM--SPACE ACTIVITIES. 055 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 70,160 70,160 RANGE RADAR (3DELRR). 056 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING 137,233 137,233 SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE). ......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 876,709 876,709 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES. ......................... ......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 058 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 977 977 DEVELOPMENT. 061 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 3,601 3,601 FLIGHT TRAINING. 062 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 1,971 1,971 DEVELOPMENT. 064 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 51,456 51,456 ENTERPRISE. 065 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT 50 50 066 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)-- 115,000 115,000 EMD. 067 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS....... 23,930 23,930 068 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 400,258 400,258 SYSTEMS. 069 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK. 4,575 4,575 070 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM 352,532 20,000 372,532 (SBIRS) HIGH EMD. ......................... Space Based Infrared [20,000] Systems (SBIRS) Data Exploitation. 071 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 16,284 16,284 DEVELOPMENT. 072 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............... 2,564 2,564 073 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT....... 17,036 17,036 074 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS....... 7,273 7,273 075 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES..... 33,200 33,200 078 0604800F F-35--EMD.................. 816,335 816,335 079 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC 145,442 145,442 MISSILE--EMD. 080 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 27,963 27,963 VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)-- EMD. 081 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON. 5,000 5,000 082 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.... 129,411 129,411 083 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 131,100 131,100 INCREMENT 3.2B. 084 0605221F KC-46...................... 1,558,590 1,558,590 085 0605229F CSAR HH-60 RECAPITALIZATION 393,558 393,558 086 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E...... 6,242 6,242 087 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 272,872 272,872 (SPACE). 088 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).... 124,805 124,805 089 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 13,948 13,948 (SPACE). 090 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 303,500 303,500 SYSTEM. 091 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 67,874 67,874 MODERNIZATION. 094 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 4,663 4,663 TRAINING. 097 0401318F CV-22...................... 46,705 46,705 ......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 5,078,715 20,000 5,098,715 DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION. ......................... ......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 099 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 17,690 17,690 DEVELOPMENT. 100 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 34,841 34,841 101 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE..... 32,956 32,956 103 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 13,610 13,610 EVALUATION. 104 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 742,658 742,658 105 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 14,203 14,203 PROGRAM (SPACE). 106 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP)... 13,000 13,000 107 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND 44,160 44,160 MODERNIZATION--TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT. 108 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 27,643 27,643 TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT. 109 0606323F MULTI-SERVICE SYSTEMS 13,935 13,935 ENGINEERING INITIATIVE. 110 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 192,348 192,348 (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE. 111 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT 28,647 28,647 SUPPORT. 112 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING..... 315 315 114 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES... 3,785 3,785 ......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,179,791 1,179,791 SUPPORT. ......................... ......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 115 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 383,500 383,500 III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT. 117 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE..... 5,000 5,000 118 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 90,097 90,097 PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS). 119 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 32,086 32,086 EXECUTIVE AGENCY. 121 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS............. 24,007 24,007 122 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE 450 450 (ALCM). 123 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS............. 19,589 19,589 124 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS.............. 100,194 100,194 125 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM-- 37,448 37,448 USSTRATCOM. 128 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 1,700 1,700 CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM. 130 0203761F WARFIGHTER RAPID 3,844 3,844 ACQUISITION PROCESS (WRAP) RAPID TRANSITION FUND. 131 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................... 128,328 128,328 133 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS............. 9,614 9,614 134 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS............. 177,298 177,298 135 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS............ 244,289 244,289 136 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 13,138 13,138 SUPPRESSION. 137 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS............ 328,542 328,542 138 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS............. 33,000 33,000 139 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 15,460 15,460 140 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 84,172 84,172 TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM). 142 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY. 2,582 2,582 143 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE.. 542 542 144 0207247F AF TENCAP.................. 89,816 89,816 145 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,075 1,075 PROCUREMENT. 146 0207253F COMPASS CALL............... 10,782 10,782 147 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 139,369 139,369 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 149 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 6,373 6,373 STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM). 150 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 22,820 22,820 CENTER (AOC). 151 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 7,029 7,029 CENTER (CRC). 152 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 186,256 186,256 CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS). 153 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 743 743 SYSTEMS. 156 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 4,471 4,471 SYSTEM ACTIVITIES. 158 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY- 10,250 10,250 MOD. 159 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK... 1,431 1,431 160 0207449F COMMAND AND CONTROL (C2) 7,329 7,329 CONSTELLATION. 161 0207452F DCAPES..................... 15,081 15,081 162 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET 13,248 13,248 ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS). 163 0207590F SEEK EAGLE................. 24,342 24,342 164 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 10,448 10,448 SIMULATION. 165 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 5,512 5,512 CENTERS. 166 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 3,301 3,301 EXERCISES. 167 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS... 62,605 62,605 169 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES... 68,099 68,099 170 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 14,047 14,047 OPERATIONS. 171 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 5,853 5,853 OPERATIONS. 179 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 12,197 12,197 INTELLIGENCE. 180 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 18,267 18,267 OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC). 181 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 36,288 36,288 COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN). 182 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 90,231 90,231 SECURITY PROGRAM. 183 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 725 725 SYSTEM. 185 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS........ 140,170 140,170 187 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE. 117,110 117,110 190 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,430 4,430 MANAGEMENT (GATM). 191 0305103F CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 2,048 2,048 192 0305105F DOD CYBER CRIME CENTER..... 288 288 193 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 35,698 35,698 (SPACE). 194 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE............ 24,667 24,667 195 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 35,674 35,674 APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS). 196 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS............. 21,186 21,186 199 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE 195 195 ACTIVITIES. 200 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION 1,430 1,430 201 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 330 330 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. 206 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND 3,696 3,696 EVALUATION CENTER. 207 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, 2,469 2,469 INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 208 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,289 8,289 SERVICE (IBS). 209 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 13,345 13,345 (SPACE). 211 0305202F DRAGON U-2................. 18,700 18,700 212 0305205F ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL 3,000 3,000 VEHICLES. 213 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 37,828 37,828 SYSTEMS. 214 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 13,491 13,491 SYSTEMS. 215 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 7,498 7,498 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 216 0305219F MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV........ 3,326 3,326 217 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................... 134,406 134,406 218 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 7,413 7,413 COLLABORATIVE TARGETING. 219 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL)..... 40,503 40,503 220 0305238F NATO AGS................... 264,134 264,134 221 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE. 23,016 23,016 222 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT...... 221,276 221,276 223 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM....... 58,523 58,523 224 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.... 2,218 2,218 226 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 50,547 50,547 (SPACE). 227 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 18,807 18,807 OPERATIONS. 229 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW). 1,079 1,079 230 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON..... 400 26,000 26,400 ......................... C-130H Propulsion [26,000] System Propeller Upgrades. 231 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF). 61,492 61,492 232 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)......... 109,134 109,134 233 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM............. 22,443 22,443 234 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 4,116 4,116 COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM). 238 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT 44,553 44,553 239 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 6,213 6,213 CONTROL. 240 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 1,605 1,605 242 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 95,238 95,238 TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT). 243 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 10,925 10,925 244 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING...... 1,347 1,347 245 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES. 65 65 246 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 1,083 1,083 AGENCY. 247 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 1,577 1,577 PROGRAM. 248 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION... 5,990 5,990 249 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 786 786 ANALYSIS AGENCY. 250 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION-- 654 654 ADMINISTRATIVE. 251 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 135,735 135,735 INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 252A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 11,874,528 20,000 11,894,528 ......................... Program Increase....... [20,000] ......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 16,297,542 46,000 16,343,542 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 25,702,946 76,000 25,778,946 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF. ......................... ......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ......................... BASIC RESEARCH 001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 45,837 45,837 INITIATIVE. 002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 315,033 315,033 003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES. 11,171 11,171 004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 49,500 49,500 RESEARCH SCIENCE. 005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION 84,271 5,000 89,271 PROGRAM. ......................... Restore PK-12 funding.. [5,000] 006 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES 30,895 5,000 35,895 AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS. ......................... Program increase....... [5,000] 007 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 51,426 51,426 DEFENSE PROGRAM. ......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 588,133 10,000 598,133 ......................... ......................... APPLIED RESEARCH 008 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY. 20,065 -6,500 13,565 ......................... Decrease to insensitive [-6,500] munitions program. 009 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 114,790 114,790 011 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH 46,875 46,875 PROGRAM. 013 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 45,000 45,000 ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES. 014 0602303E INFORMATION & 413,260 413,260 COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. 015 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING SYSTEMS 16,330 16,330 017 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE. 24,537 24,537 018 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 227,065 -10,000 217,065 DEFENSE PROGRAM. ......................... Program decrease....... [-10,000] 020 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.... 18,908 18,908 022 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY........ 225,977 225,977 023 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 166,654 166,654 TECHNOLOGY. 024 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY..... 243,469 243,469 025 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 175,282 175,282 DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES. 026 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 11,107 11,107 INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH. 027 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 29,246 29,246 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,778,565 -16,500 1,762,065 RESEARCH. ......................... ......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 028 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 26,646 26,646 TECHNOLOGY. 029 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT 19,420 500 19,920 ......................... Program increase for [500] future information operations strategy. 030 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 77,792 77,792 TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT. 031 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 274,033 274,033 INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT. 032 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 309,203 -70,000 239,203 TECHNOLOGY. ......................... Decrease in funding of [-70,000] Common Kill Vehicle Technology Program. 034 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 19,305 19,305 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 035 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR 7,565 7,565 THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)-- THEATER CAPABILITY. 036 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 40,426 40,426 TECHNOLOGY. 037 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS. 149,804 149,804 038 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 172,546 172,546 TECHNOLOGY. 039 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 170,847 170,847 DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT. 040 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 9,009 9,009 TECHNOLOGY. 041 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY 174,428 -7,000 167,428 DEMONSTRATIONS. ......................... Decrease to Strategic [-7,000] Capabilities Office efforts. 042 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 20,000 20,000 CAPABILITIES. 045 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED 19,668 19,668 RESEARCH. 047 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING 34,041 34,041 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. 048 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 61,971 -8,000 53,971 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ......................... Decrease to Strategic [-8,000] Capabilities Office efforts. 050 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 20,000 20,000 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS. 051 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION 30,256 30,256 ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY. 052 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 72,324 72,324 RESEARCH PROGRAM. 053 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 82,700 82,700 DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT. 054 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM.. 8,431 8,431 055 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 117,080 117,080 TECHNOLOGIES. 057 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 239,078 239,078 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS. 059 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 259,006 259,006 TECHNOLOGY. 060 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.......... 286,364 286,364 061 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 12,116 12,116 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 062 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 19,008 19,008 INSTITUTE. 063 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 78,532 78,532 PROJECTS. 065 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION...... 12,667 12,667 066 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION 41,370 41,370 MANAGEMENT OFFICE. 069 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & 92,508 92,508 TECHNOLOGY. 070 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 52,001 8,000 60,001 CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT. ......................... Operational Energy [8,000] Capability Improvement Fund. 071 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............... 52,053 52,053 072 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS ADVANCED 46,809 46,809 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,109,007 -76,500 3,032,507 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 075 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 63,641 63,641 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P. 076 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH.............. 19,152 19,152 077 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................... 70,763 70,763 079 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS 17,230 17,230 APPLICATION PROGRAM. 080 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 71,453 71,453 TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. 081 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 268,990 268,990 TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT. 082 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 1,033,903 140,400 1,174,303 MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT. ......................... Planning and Design [50,000] (35% to 100% design). ......................... RDT&E Ground Systems [70,000] Development. ......................... RDT&E Site Activities, [20,400] including EIS. 082A 0603XXXC COMMON KILL VEHICLE 70,000 70,000 TECHNOLOGY AND CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. ......................... Common Kill Vehicle [70,000] Technology Program. 083 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 196,237 196,237 DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL. 084 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 315,183 315,183 SENSORS. 086 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS...... 377,605 377,605 087 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA...... 286,613 286,613 088 0603892C AEGIS BMD.................. 937,056 937,056 089 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 44,947 44,947 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM. 090 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6,515 6,515 SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS. 091 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 418,355 418,355 COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATI. 092 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 47,419 47,419 JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT. 093 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION 52,131 52,131 & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC). 094 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH........... 13,864 13,864 095 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 44,478 44,478 (SBX). 096 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 95,782 188,000 283,782 PROGRAMS. ......................... Development of [15,000] increased capabilities for Iron Dome. ......................... Increase Israeli [173,000] Cooperative Programs. 097 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 375,866 375,866 TEST. 098 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 495,257 495,257 TARGETS. 099 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING...... 11,704 11,704 100 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE.......... 9,842 9,842 101 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,312 10,000 13,312 CORROSION PROGRAM. ......................... Corrosion Prevention, [10,000] Control, and Mitigation. 102 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 130,000 -105,000 25,000 TECHNOLOGIES. ......................... Decrease to SCO efforts [-105,000] 103 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) 8,300 8,300 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT. 104 0604445J WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE..... 30,000 30,000 106 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 250,000 250,000 PROGRAM. ......................... Rapid Innovation [250,000] Program. 108 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.. 7,402 7,402 110 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION AND 7,506 7,506 INTEROPERABILITY TEAM. 111 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).... 129,374 129,374 112 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 308,522 308,522 DEVELOPMENT. 115 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 3,169 3,169 TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM. 116 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 946 946 ......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 5,902,517 553,400 6,455,917 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES. ......................... ......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 8,155 8,155 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD. 119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 65,440 65,440 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT. 120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 451,306 451,306 DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD. 122 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT 29,138 29,138 PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO). 123 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION 19,475 19,475 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS). 124 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 12,901 12,901 DEFEAT CAPABILITIES. 125 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 13,812 13,812 DEVELOPMENT. 126 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY 386 386 INITIATIVE. 127 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 3,763 3,763 PROGRAM. 128 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 6,788 6,788 INITIATIVES. 129 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 27,917 27,917 DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION. 130 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION 22,297 22,297 131 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES 51,689 51,689 (DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM. 132 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 6,184 6,184 PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES. 133 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 12,083 12,083 SYSTEM. 134 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 3,302 3,302 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM). ......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 734,636 734,636 DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION. ......................... ......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 135 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING 6,393 6,393 SYSTEM (DRRS). 136 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 2,479 2,479 DEVELOPMENT. 137 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION 240,213 240,213 INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP). 138 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 2,127 2,127 139 0604943D8Z THERMAL VICAR.............. 8,287 8,287 140 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 31,000 31,000 TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC). 141 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT 24,379 24,379 AND ANALYSIS. 143 0605117D8Z FOREIGN MATERIEL 54,311 54,311 ACQUISITION AND EXPLOITATION. 144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 47,462 47,462 MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO). 146 0605130D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING 12,134 12,134 147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING........ 44,237 44,237 148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 5,871 5,871 SUPPORT--OSD. 149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,028 5,028 SECURITY. 150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 6,301 6,301 INFORMATION INTEGRATION. 151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 6,504 6,504 (INTELLIGENCE). 152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 92,046 92,046 DEFENSE PROGRAM. 158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 1,868 1,868 RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (S. 159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS 8,362 8,362 160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 56,024 56,024 INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC). 161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 6,908 6,908 ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION. 162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 15,451 4,000 19,451 EVALUATION. ......................... Program increase....... [4,000] 164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 71,659 71,659 165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,083 4,083 ASSESSMENTS. 167 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY 5,306 5,306 INITIATIVE (DOSI). 168 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 2,097 2,097 SUPPORT. 172 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 8,394 8,394 OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES. 175 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE......... 7,624 7,624 178 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 43,247 43,247 AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2). 179 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA......... 37,712 37,712 180 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS WHS 607 607 181A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 54,914 54,914 ......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 913,028 4,000 917,028 SUPPORT. ......................... ......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 182 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM 7,552 7,552 (ESS). 183 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 3,270 3,270 OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA. 184 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 287 287 ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS). 185 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 14,000 14,000 AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT. 186 0607310D8Z OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 1,955 1,955 DEVELOPMENT. 187 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 13,250 13,250 COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G- TSCMIS). 188 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 13,026 13,026 DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT). 190 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND 12,652 12,652 INTEROPERABILITY. 191 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,061 3,061 SYSTEM (PDAS). 192 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY....... 72,726 72,726 194 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 6,524 6,524 INFORMATION SHARING. 201 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 512 512 SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT. 202 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 12,867 12,867 ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION. 203 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 36,565 36,565 DCS. 204 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 13,144 13,144 COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN). 205 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 1,060 1,060 (PKI). 206 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 33,279 33,279 INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI). 207 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 10,673 10,673 SECURITY PROGRAM. 208 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 181,567 -2,276 179,291 SECURITY PROGRAM. ......................... Excess to need......... [-2,276] 210 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL 34,288 34,288 SYSTEM. 211 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 7,741 7,741 ORGANIZATION. 212 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE 3,325 3,325 SERVICES (NCES). 213 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION 1,246 1,246 PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO). 214 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM........... 5,147 5,147 216 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR 17,352 17,352 CONTINGENCIES. 220 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 3,658 3,658 221 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 9,752 9,752 PROTECTION (CIP). 225 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS........ 3,210 3,210 227 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY............. 21,602 21,602 230 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,195 5,195 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 233 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,348 3,348 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 235 0305219BB MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV........ 641 641 238 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 2,338 2,338 TRANSFER PROGRAM. 239 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 4,372 4,372 TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES. 247 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.... 24,691 24,691 248 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT 4,659 4,659 ACTIVITIES. 249 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS........ 3,533 3,533 250 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................... 1,314 1,314 254 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS........... 156,561 156,561 256 1160405BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 7,705 7,705 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 257 1160408BB SOF OPERATIONAL 42,620 42,620 ENHANCEMENTS. 261 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS............ 17,970 17,970 262 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS........... 7,424 7,424 268 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES...... 2,206 2,206 271 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS........... 18,325 18,325 274 1160489BB SOF GLOBAL VIDEO 3,304 3,304 SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES. 275 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL 16,021 16,021 ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE. 275A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 3,773,704 3,773,704 ......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,641,222 -2,276 4,638,946 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,667,108 472,124 18,139,232 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW. ......................... ......................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 75,720 75,720 EVALUATION. 002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 48,423 48,423 EVALUATION. 003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES 62,157 62,157 AND ANALYSES. ......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 186,300 186,300 SUPPORT. ......................... ......................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST 186,300 186,300 & EVAL, DEFENSE. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RDT&E........... 67,520,236 559,224 68,079,460 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 House Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 087 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 7,000 7,000 VEHICLES. ......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 7,000 7,000 DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 7,000 7,000 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY. ......................... ......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 224A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 34,426 34,426 ......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 34,426 34,426 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 34,426 34,426 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY. ......................... ......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 252A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 9,000 9,000 ......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 9,000 9,000 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 9,000 9,000 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF. ......................... ......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 275A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 66,208 66,208 ......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 66,208 66,208 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 66,208 66,208 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW. ......................... ......................... TOTAL RDT&E............ 116,634 116,634 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 House Line Item Request House Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 888,114 208,600 1,096,714 Missile Defense Deployment to Guam.......... [13,100] Restore Army OPTEMPO to 90%................. [195,500] 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 72,624 72,624 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 617,402 617,402 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 602,262 602,262 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,032,484 1,032,484 060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 1,287,462 15,800 1,303,262 Restore Army Flying Hour Program to 90%..... [15,800] 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 3,559,656 3,559,656 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 454,477 454,477 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 1,481,156 1,481,156 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 7,278,154 7,278,154 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 2,754,712 257,000 3,011,712 MODERNIZATION.................................. Realignment of Arlington National Cemetary [-25,000] operations.................................. Sustainment to 90%.......................... [282,000] 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 425,271 425,271 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 185,064 185,064 170 COMBATANT COMMANDERS ANCILLARY MISSIONS......... 463,270 -6,676 456,594 Realignment of SOUTHCOM Information [3,100] Operations.................................. Unjustified EUCOM Growth.................... [-9,776] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 21,102,108 474,724 21,576,832 MOBILIZATION 180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.............................. 360,240 360,240 190 ARMY PREPOSITIONING STOCKS...................... 192,105 192,105 200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS......................... 7,101 7,101 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 559,446 559,446 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 210 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 115,992 115,992 220 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 52,323 52,323 230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING....................... 43,589 43,589 240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.......... 453,745 453,745 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 1,034,495 1,034,495 260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 1,016,876 1,016,876 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 186,565 186,565 280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 652,514 652,514 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 485,500 485,500 300 EXAMINING....................................... 170,912 170,912 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 251,523 251,523 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 184,422 184,422 330 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 181,105 181,105 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 4,829,561 4,829,561 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 690,089 690,089 360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 774,120 5,000 779,120 Corrosion Prevention, Control, and [5,000] Mitigation.................................. 370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................... 651,765 651,765 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 453,051 453,051 390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 487,737 487,737 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,563,115 1,563,115 410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 326,853 326,853 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 234,364 234,364 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 1,212,091 1,212,091 440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.......................... 243,540 243,540 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 241,101 241,101 460 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 226,291 226,291 470 SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATIONS...................... 426,651 31,200 457,851 Realignment of NATO Special Operations [31,200] Headquarters from O&M Defense-wide.......... 480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS.................. 27,248 -3,100 24,148 Realignment of SOUTHCOM Information [-3,100] Operations.................................. 525 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,023,946 1,023,946 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 8,581,962 33,100 8,615,062 UNDISTRIBUTED 530 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -740,300 -740,300 Average civilian end strength above [-284,300] projection.................................. Unobligated balances........................ [-456,000] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -740,300 -740,300 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 35,073,077 -232,476 34,840,601 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 1,621 1,621 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 24,429 24,429 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 657,099 657,099 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 122,485 122,485 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 584,058 584,058 060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 79,380 79,380 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 471,616 471,616 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 74,243 74,243 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 70,894 70,894 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 569,801 569,801 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 294,145 29,100 323,245 MODERNIZATION.................................. Sustainment to 90%.......................... [29,100] 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 51,853 51,853 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,001,624 29,100 3,030,724 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 10,735 10,735 140 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 24,197 24,197 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 10,304 10,304 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 10,319 10,319 170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 37,857 37,857 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 93,412 93,412 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 3,095,036 29,100 3,124,136 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 800,880 800,880 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 178,650 178,650 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 771,503 771,503 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 98,699 98,699 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 38,779 38,779 060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 922,503 922,503 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 761,056 761,056 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 62,971 62,971 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 233,105 233,105 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 1,019,059 1,019,059 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 712,139 74,200 786,339 MODERNIZATION.................................. Sustainment to 90%.......................... [74,200] 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 1,013,715 1,013,715 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,613,059 74,200 6,687,259 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 10,812 10,812 140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 1,551 1,551 150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 78,284 78,284 160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 46,995 46,995 170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 6,390 6,390 180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 297,105 297,105 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 441,137 441,137 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 4,952,522 4,952,522 020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.............................. 1,826,404 1,826,404 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 38,639 38,639 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 90,030 90,030 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 362,700 362,700 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 915,881 915,881 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 35,838 35,838 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 379,914 68,500 448,414 CLS for AVN Logistics....................... [68,500] 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 3,884,836 3,884,836 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 734,852 734,852 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 5,191,511 5,191,511 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 1,351,274 1,351,274 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 701,316 -9,594 691,722 New START treaty implementation, excluding [-9,594] verification and inspection activities...... 140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.............................. 97,710 97,710 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE.................. 172,330 172,330 160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 454,682 454,682 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 328,406 328,406 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 946,429 946,429 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 142,249 6,000 148,249 Corrosion Prevention, Control, and [6,000] Mitigation.................................. 200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT........................ 2,603 2,603 210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 102,970 102,970 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 199,128 199,128 230 CRUISE MISSILE.................................. 92,671 92,671 240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE......................... 1,193,188 1,193,188 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 105,985 105,985 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 532,627 532,627 270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 304,160 304,160 280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 1,011,528 1,011,528 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 1,996,821 185,200 2,182,021 Sustainment to 90%.......................... [185,200] 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 4,460,918 4,460,918 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 32,610,122 250,106 32,860,228 MOBILIZATION 310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE................... 331,576 331,576 320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.............. 6,638 6,638 330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 222,752 222,752 340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 73,310 73,310 350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS............................ 2,675 2,675 360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 23,794 23,794 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 660,745 660,745 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 370 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 148,516 148,516 380 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 9,384 9,384 390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS................. 139,876 139,876 400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 630,069 630,069 410 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 9,294 9,294 420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 169,082 169,082 430 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 164,368 164,368 440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 241,733 1,100 242,833 Naval Sea Cadets............................ [1,100] 450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 139,815 139,815 460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 94,632 94,632 470 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 51,373 51,373 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 1,798,142 1,100 1,799,242 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 480 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 886,088 886,088 490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 13,131 13,131 500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 115,742 115,742 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 382,150 382,150 520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 268,403 268,403 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 317,293 317,293 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 207,128 207,128 570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN................ 295,855 295,855 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 1,140,484 1,140,484 590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT......... 52,873 52,873 600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.......................... 27,587 27,587 610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS............ 75,728 75,728 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 543,026 543,026 680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES......... 4,965 4,965 705 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 545,775 545,775 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 4,876,228 4,876,228 UNDISTRIBUTED 710 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -278,200 -278,200 Average civilian end strength above [-38,500] projection.................................. Unobligated balances........................ [-239,700] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -278,200 -278,200 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 39,945,237 -26,994 39,918,243 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 837,012 65,000 902,012 Crisis Response Force....................... [30,000] Marine Security Guard....................... [35,000] 020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 894,555 4,000 898,555 Corrosion Prevention, Control, and [4,000] Mitigation.................................. 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 223,337 -2,000 221,337 Unjustified Growth HUMVEE Modifications..... [-2,000] 040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING......................... 97,878 97,878 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 774,619 7,100 781,719 Sustainment to 90%.......................... [7,100] 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 2,166,661 2,166,661 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 4,994,062 74,100 5,068,162 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 070 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 17,693 17,693 080 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 896 896 090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 100,806 100,806 100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 46,928 46,928 110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 356,426 356,426 120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 179,747 179,747 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 52,255 52,255 140 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 23,138 23,138 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 777,889 777,889 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 43,816 43,816 160 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 305,107 305,107 180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 87,500 87,500 185 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 46,276 46,276 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 482,699 482,699 UNDISTRIBUTED 190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -50,000 -50,000 Unobligated balances........................ [-50,000] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -50,000 -50,000 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 6,254,650 24,100 6,278,750 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 586,620 586,620 020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 7,008 7,008 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 100,657 100,657 050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 305 305 060 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 3,927 3,927 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 75,933 75,933 080 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 601 601 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 44,364 44,364 100 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 15,477 15,477 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 115,608 115,608 120 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 1,967 1,967 130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 43,726 43,726 140 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 69,011 5,000 74,011 Sustainment to 90%.......................... [5,000] 150 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 109,604 109,604 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 1,174,808 5,000 1,179,808 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 160 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 2,905 2,905 170 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 14,425 14,425 180 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,485 2,485 190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 3,129 3,129 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 22,944 22,944 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 1,197,752 5,000 1,202,752 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 96,244 96,244 020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 17,581 1,500 19,081 Restore Critical Depot Maintenance.......... [1,500] 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 32,438 300 32,738 Sustainment to 90%.......................... [300] 040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 95,259 95,259 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 241,522 1,800 243,322 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 894 894 060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 11,743 11,743 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 9,158 9,158 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 21,795 21,795 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 263,317 1,800 265,117 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 3,295,814 3,295,814 020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,875,095 1,875,095 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 1,559,109 1,559,109 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 5,956,304 5,000 5,961,304 Corrosion Prevention, Control, and [5,000] Mitigation.................................. 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 1,834,424 390,030 2,224,454 MODERNIZATION.................................. Restoration, Modernization, and Demolition [170,530] project shortfalls.......................... Sustainment to 90%.......................... [219,500] 060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 2,779,811 2,779,811 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 913,841 913,841 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 916,837 916,837 100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES..... 720,349 720,349 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 305,275 305,275 120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 433,658 433,658 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 1,146,016 1,100 1,147,116 NORTHCOM VOICE program...................... [1,100] 140 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 231,830 231,830 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 21,968,363 396,130 22,364,493 MOBILIZATION 150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 2,015,902 2,015,902 160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 147,216 147,216 170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,556,232 1,556,232 180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 167,402 167,402 MODERNIZATION.................................. 190 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 707,040 707,040 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 4,593,792 4,593,792 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 200 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 102,334 102,334 210 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 17,733 17,733 220 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).......... 94,600 94,600 230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 217,011 217,011 MODERNIZATION.................................. 240 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 800,327 800,327 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 399,364 399,364 260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 792,275 792,275 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 248,958 248,958 280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 106,741 106,741 290 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 319,331 319,331 300 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 122,736 122,736 310 EXAMINING....................................... 3,679 3,679 320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 137,255 137,255 330 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 176,153 176,153 340 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 67,018 67,018 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 3,605,515 3,605,515 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 1,103,684 1,103,684 360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 919,923 919,923 370 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 56,601 -4,000 52,601 Heavy bomber eliminations related to New [-400] START treaty implementation................. ICBM reductions related to New START [-3,600] implementation.............................. 380 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 281,061 281,061 MODERNIZATION.................................. 390 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,203,305 1,203,305 400 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 593,865 593,865 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 574,609 574,609 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 1,028,600 -15,400 1,013,200 De-MIRVing ICBMs related to New START treaty [-700] implementation.............................. ICBM eliminations and Environmental Impact [-14,700] Study related to New START treaty implementation.............................. 430 CIVIL AIR PATROL................................ 24,720 24,720 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 89,008 89,008 465 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,227,796 -4,800 1,222,996 Classified Adjustment....................... [-4,800] SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 7,103,172 -24,200 7,078,972 UNDISTRIBUTED 470 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -205,100 -205,100 Average civilian end strength above [-18,700] projection.................................. Unobligated balances........................ [-186,400] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -205,100 -205,100 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 37,270,842 166,830 37,437,672 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,857,951 1,857,951 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 224,462 224,462 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 521,182 521,182 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 89,704 9,100 98,804 MODERNIZATION.................................. Sustainment to 90%.......................... [9,100] 050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 360,836 360,836 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,054,135 9,100 3,063,235 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 64,362 64,362 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 15,056 15,056 080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).......... 23,617 23,617 090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)............ 6,618 6,618 100 AUDIOVISUAL..................................... 819 819 SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 110,472 110,472 ACTIVITIES.................................. TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 3,164,607 9,100 3,173,707 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS............................. 3,371,871 3,371,871 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 720,305 720,305 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,514,870 1,514,870 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 296,953 26,900 323,853 MODERNIZATION.................................. Sustainment to 90%.......................... [26,900] 050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 597,303 597,303 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,501,302 26,900 6,528,202 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 32,117 32,117 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 32,585 32,585 SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE 64,702 64,702 ACTIVITIES.................................. TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 6,566,004 26,900 6,592,904 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 472,239 472,239 020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND...................... 5,261,463 -30,752 5,230,711 AFSOC Flying Hour Program................... [70,100] International SOF Information Sharing System [-7,017] Ongoing baseline contingency operations..... [-35,519] Pilot program for SOF family members........ [5,000] Preserve the force and families--human [-16,605] performance program......................... Preserve the force and families--resiliency. [-8,786] Realignment of NATO Special Operations [-31,200] Headquarters to O&M, Army................... Regional SOF Coordination Centers........... [-14,725] SOCOM National Capitol Region............... [-10,000] USASOC Flying Hour Program.................. [18,000] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,733,702 -30,752 5,702,950 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY.................. 157,397 157,397 050 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY..................... 84,899 84,899 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 242,296 242,296 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 060 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS......................... 144,443 21,000 165,443 STARBASE.................................... [21,000] 080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 612,207 612,207 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 1,378,606 1,378,606 110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 763,091 763,091 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 1,326,243 1,326,243 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 29,933 29,933 150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY........................ 462,545 462,545 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 222,979 222,979 170 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE.......................... 21,594 21,594 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 788,389 788,389 190 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE........................ 546,603 546,603 210 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...... 35,151 35,151 220 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY................. 438,033 438,033 240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 2,713,756 2,713,756 250 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.......................... 256,201 256,201 270 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT................... 371,615 -153,900 217,715 Program reduction........................... [-153,900] 280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 2,010,176 -17,500 1,992,676 BRAC 2015 Initiative........................ [-8,000] Combatant Commanders Exercise Engagement [90,500] Training Transformation..................... Procurement Technical Assistance Program-- [10,000] Enhanced Business Support................... Realignment to Building Partnership Capacity [-35,000] authories................................... Reduction to Building Partnership Capacity [-75,000] authories................................... 290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 616,572 616,572 295 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 14,283,558 4,090 14,287,648 Classified adjustment....................... [4,090] SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 27,021,695 -146,310 26,875,385 ACTIVITIES.................................. UNDISTRIBUTED 305 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -320,000 -320,000 Section 514. Study of Reserve Component [3,000] General and Flag Officers................... Section 551. Department of Defense [5,000] Recognition of Spouses of Members of Armed Forces who Serve in Combat Zones............ Section 571 .DOD Supplementary Impact Aid... [25,000] Section 621. Expand the victims transitional [10,000] compensation benefit........................ Unobligated balances........................ [-363,000] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -320,000 -320,000 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 32,997,693 -497,062 32,500,631 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 050 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID... 109,500 109,500 060 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.................... 528,455 528,455 080 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD............................ 256,031 256,031 090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY................. 298,815 298,815 160 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND... 5,000 -5,000 Program reduction........................... [-5,000] SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 1,197,801 -5,000 1,192,801 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 100 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY................. 316,103 316,103 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 316,103 316,103 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 110 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE............ 439,820 439,820 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 439,820 439,820 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 040 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 13,606 -980 12,626 DEFENSE........................................ Unjustified Growth.......................... [-980] 120 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.............. 10,757 10,757 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 24,363 -980 23,383 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 130 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES... 237,443 237,443 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 237,443 237,443 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS......... 2,215,530 -5,980 2,209,550 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 175,097,941 -425,482 174,672,459 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 House Line Item Request House Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 217,571 30,000 247,571 Missile Defense Deployment--Other........... [15,000] Missile Defense Deployment to Turkey........ [15,000] 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 8,266 8,266 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 56,626 56,626 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 4,209,942 4,209,942 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 950,567 950,567 060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 474,288 474,288 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 1,349,152 1,349,152 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 655,000 655,000 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 301,563 495,000 796,563 Restore High Priority Depot Maintenance..... [495,000] 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 706,214 706,214 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 11,519,498 11,519,498 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM........... 60,000 60,000 160 RESET........................................... 2,240,358 1,500,000 3,740,358 Restore Critical Army Reset................. [1,500,000] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 22,749,045 2,025,000 24,774,045 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 4,601,356 4,601,356 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 17,418 17,418 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 110,000 110,000 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 94,820 94,820 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 54,000 54,000 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 250,000 250,000 525 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,402,994 1,402,994 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 6,530,588 6,530,588 UNDISTRIBUTED 530 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 91,100 91,100 Increase to support higher fuel rates....... [91,100] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... 91,100 91,100 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 29,279,633 2,116,100 31,395,733 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 6,995 6,995 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 2,332 2,332 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 608 608 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 75,800 75,800 Restore High Priority Depot Maintenance..... [75,800] 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 33,000 33,000 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 42,935 75,800 118,735 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 42,935 75,800 118,735 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 29,314 29,314 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 1,494 1,494 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 15,343 15,343 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 1,549 1,549 060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 64,504 64,504 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 31,512 31,512 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 42,179 42,179 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 11,996 11,996 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 197,891 197,891 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,480 1,480 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 1,480 1,480 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 199,371 199,371 AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 010 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 2,735,603 2,735,603 020 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 278,650 278,650 030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 2,180,382 2,180,382 040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 626,550 626,550 SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE................ 5,821,185 5,821,185 MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 060 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 1,214,995 1,214,995 080 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 54,696 54,696 090 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 626,119 626,119 SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR............... 1,895,810 1,895,810 DETAINEE OPS 110 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 7,225 7,225 140 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 2,500 2,500 SUBTOTAL DETAINEE OPS....................... 9,725 9,725 TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND..... 7,726,720 7,726,720 AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 010 POWER........................................... 279,000 279,000 SUBTOTAL AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND.... 279,000 279,000 TOTAL AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND...... 279,000 279,000 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 845,169 845,169 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 600 600 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 17,489 17,489 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 78,491 78,491 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 162,420 40,000 202,420 Restore critical depot maintenance.......... [40,000] 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 2,700 2,700 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 50,130 50,130 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 949,539 11,400 960,939 Spares...................................... [11,400] 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 20,226 20,226 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 1,679,660 164,000 1,843,660 Program increase............................ [164,000] 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 126,000 126,000 Program increase............................ [126,000] 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 37,760 37,760 160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 25,351 25,351 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 20,045 20,045 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 1,212,296 453,000 1,665,296 Combat forces equipment..................... [148,000] Combat forces shortfall..................... [305,000] 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 10,203 10,203 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 127,972 127,972 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 221,427 221,427 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 13,386 13,386 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 110,940 110,940 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,585,804 794,400 6,380,204 MOBILIZATION 340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 18,460 18,460 360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 227,033 227,033 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 245,493 245,493 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 50,269 50,269 430 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 5,400 5,400 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 55,669 55,669 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 480 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 2,418 2,418 490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 516 516 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 5,107 5,107 520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 1,411 1,411 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,545 2,545 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 153,427 153,427 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 8,570 8,570 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 1,425 1,425 705 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 5,608 5,608 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 181,027 181,027 UNDISTRIBUTED 710 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 155,400 155,400 Increase to support higher fuel rates....... [155,400] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... 155,400 155,400 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 6,067,993 949,800 7,017,793 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 992,190 992,190 020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 559,574 559,574 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 570,000 56,000 626,000 Restore High Priority Depot Maintenance..... [56,000] 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 69,726 69,726 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,191,490 56,000 2,247,490 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 108,270 108,270 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 108,270 108,270 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 365,555 365,555 160 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 3,675 3,675 185 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 825 825 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 370,055 370,055 UNDISTRIBUTED 190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 5,400 5,400 Increase to support higher fuel rates....... [5,400] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... 5,400 5,400 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 2,669,815 61,400 2,731,215 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 17,196 17,196 020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 200 200 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 6,000 6,000 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 12,304 12,304 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 6,790 6,790 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 13,210 13,210 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 55,700 55,700 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 55,700 55,700 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 11,124 11,124 040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 1,410 1,410 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 12,534 12,534 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 12,534 12,534 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,712,393 70,000 1,782,393 Restore Critical Depot Maintenance.......... [70,000] 020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 836,104 836,104 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 14,118 14,118 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,373,480 100,000 1,473,480 Program increase............................ [100,000] 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 122,712 122,712 MODERNIZATION.................................. 060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,520,333 1,520,333 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 31,582 31,582 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 147,524 147,524 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 857 857 120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 8,353 8,353 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 50,495 50,495 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,817,951 170,000 5,987,951 MOBILIZATION 150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 3,091,133 50,000 3,141,133 Restore Critical Depot Maintenance.......... [50,000] 160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 47,897 47,897 170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 387,179 500,000 887,179 Program increase............................ [500,000] 180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 7,043 7,043 MODERNIZATION.................................. 190 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 68,382 68,382 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 3,601,634 550,000 4,151,634 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 200 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 100 100 210 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 478 478 240 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 19,256 19,256 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 12,845 12,845 260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 731 731 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 607 607 280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 720 720 320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 152 152 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 34,889 34,889 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 86,273 86,273 360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 2,511 2,511 390 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 19,887 19,887 400 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 3,493 3,493 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 152,086 152,086 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 269,825 269,825 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 117 117 465 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 16,558 16,558 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 550,750 550,750 UNDISTRIBUTED 470 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 284,000 284,000 Increase to support higher fuel rates....... [284,000] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... 284,000 284,000 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 10,005,224 1,004,000 11,009,224 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 26,599 26,599 050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 6,250 6,250 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 32,849 32,849 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 32,849 32,849 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 22,200 22,200 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 22,200 22,200 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 22,200 22,200 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND...................... 2,222,868 2,222,868 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,222,868 2,222,868 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 27,781 27,781 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 45,746 45,746 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 76,348 76,348 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 99,538 99,538 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 9,620 9,620 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 1,950,000 1,950,000 240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 100,100 100,100 280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 38,227 35,000 73,227 Realignment to Building Partnership Capacity [35,000] authories................................... 290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 2,784 2,784 295 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,862,066 1,862,066 SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 4,212,210 35,000 4,247,210 ACTIVITIES.................................. TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 6,435,078 35,000 6,470,078 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 62,829,052 4,242,100 67,071,152 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Military Personnel Appropriations................... 130,399,881 -180,600 130,219,281 Flight Paramedic Training Pay and Allowances-- [4,500] Army Guard..................................... Flight Paramedic Training Pay and Allowances-- [900] Army Reserve................................... Military Personnel unobligated balances........ [-186,000] Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions. 6,676,750 6,676,750 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Military Personnel Appropriations................... 9,689,307 9,689,307 Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions. 164,033 164,033 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS.................... 25,158 25,158 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 25,158 25,158 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL)............. 61,731 61,731 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 61,731 61,731 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)...................... 46,428 46,428 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 46,428 46,428 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA.......................... 1,412,510 1,412,510 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 1,412,510 1,412,510 NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND MPF MLP............................................. 134,917 134,917 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING........................ 43,404 43,404 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE........................ 116,784 116,784 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS........................ 60,703 60,703 TAH MAINTENANCE..................................... 19,809 19,809 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................ 56,058 56,058 READY RESERVE FORCE................................. 299,025 299,025 TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.......... 730,700 730,700 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 8,880,738 8,880,738 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 15,842,732 15,842,732 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 2,505,640 2,505,640 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 1,450,619 1,450,619 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................... 368,248 368,248 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 733,097 733,097 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,872,660 1,872,660 R&D RESEARCH........................................ 9,162 9,162 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT.......................... 47,977 47,977 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT............................ 291,156 291,156 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION........................ 132,430 132,430 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT......................... 161,674 161,674 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT.......................... 72,568 72,568 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT........................ 14,646 14,646 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING............................. 89,404 89,404 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION.................... 377,577 377,577 PROC IEHR........................................... 204,200 204,200 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... -276,800 -276,800 DHP Unobligated................................ [-440,800] Section 711. Future Availability of TRICARE [164,000] Prime for Certain Beneficiaries Enrolled in TRICARE Prime.................................. TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 33,054,528 -276,800 32,777,728 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............................. 451,572 451,572 RDT&E............................................... 604,183 604,183 PROCUREMENT......................................... 1,368 1,368 TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.... 1,057,123 1,057,123 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF OPERATING FORCES.................................... 815,965 815,965 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM....................... 122,580 122,580 TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 938,545 938,545 ACTIVITIES, DEF.............................. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 311,131 311,131 PROCUREMENT......................................... 1,000 1,000 TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 312,131 312,131 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 37,638,854 -276,800 37,362,054 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS.................... 44,732 44,732 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 44,732 44,732 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE C-17 CLS ENGINE REPAIR.............................. 78,500 78,500 TRANSPORTATION FALLEN HEROES........................ 10,000 10,000 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 88,500 88,500 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)...................... 131,678 131,678 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 131,678 131,678 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 375,958 375,958 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 382,560 382,560 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 132,749 132,749 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 2,238 2,238 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................... 460 460 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 10,236 10,236 TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 904,201 904,201 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF OPERATING FORCES.................................... 376,305 376,305 TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 376,305 376,305 ACTIVITIES, DEF.............................. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 10,766 10,766 TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 10,766 10,766 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 1,556,182 1,556,182 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 House Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army ALASKA Fort Wainwright Aviation Battalion Complex. 45,000 45,000 Army ALASKA Fort Wainwright Aviation Storage Hangar.... 58,000 58,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 66,000 66,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 73,000 73,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Central Energy Plant....... 34,000 34,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Fire Station............... 12,000 12,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Headquarters Building...... 33,000 33,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Runway..................... 12,000 12,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Simulator Building......... 12,200 12,200 Army FLORIDA Eglin AFB Automated Sniper Field Fire 4,700 4,700 Range. Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon Adv Individual Training 61,000 61,000 Barracks Cplx, Ph2. Army HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control 75,000 -10,000 65,000 Facility--Admin. Army KANSAS Fort Leavenworth Simulations Center......... 17,000 17,000 Army KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Battlefield Weather Support 4,800 4,800 Facility. Army MARYLAND Aberdeen Proving Ground Operations and Maintenance 21,000 21,000 Facilities. Army MARYLAND Fort Detrick Entry Control Point........ 2,500 2,500 Army MARYLAND Fort Detrick Hazardous Material Storage 4,600 4,600 Building. Army MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Adv Individual Training 86,000 86,000 Barracks Cplx, Ph1. Army MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Simulator Building......... 4,700 4,700 Army NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Cadet Barracks, Incr 2..... 42,000 42,000 Army NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Command and Control 5,900 5,900 Facility. Army TEXAS Fort Bliss Control Tower.............. 10,800 10,800 Army TEXAS Fort Bliss Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 36,000 36,000 Complex. Army VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Adv Individual Training 50,000 50,000 Barracks Cplx, Ph3. Army WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 79,000 79,000 Army WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord Airfield Operations Complex 37,000 37,000 Army WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord Aviation Battalion Complex. 28,000 28,000 Army WASHINGTON Yakima Automated Multipurpose 9,100 9,100 Machine Gun Range. Army WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location Company Operations Complex. 33,000 33,000 Army KWAJALEIN Kwajalein Atoll Pier....................... 63,000 63,000 Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Host Nation Support FY14... 33,000 -10,000 23,000 Locations Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Minor Construction FY14.... 25,000 25,000 Locations Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design FY14... 41,575 41,575 Locations Total Military Construction, Army 1,119,875 -20,000 1,099,875 ........................... ........................... Navy CALIFORNIA Barstow Engine Dynamometer Facility 14,998 14,998 Navy CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Ammunition Supply Point 13,124 13,124 Upgrade. Navy CALIFORNIA Coronado H-60 Trainer Facility...... 8,910 8,910 Navy CALIFORNIA Point Mugu Aircraft Engine Test Pads.. 7,198 7,198 Navy CALIFORNIA Point Mugu BAMS Consolidated 17,469 17,469 Maintenance Hangar. Navy CALIFORNIA Port Hueneme Unaccompanied Housing 33,600 33,600 Conversion. Navy CALIFORNIA San Diego Steam Plant 34,331 34,331 Decentralization. Navy CALIFORNIA Twentynine Palms Camp Wilson Infrastructure 33,437 33,437 Upgrades. Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville P-8A Training & Parking 20,752 20,752 Apron Expansion. Navy FLORIDA Key West Aircraft Crash/Rescue & 14,001 14,001 Fire Headquarters. Navy FLORIDA Mayport LCS Logistics Support 16,093 16,093 Facility. Navy GEORGIA Albany CERS Dispatch Facility..... 1,010 1,010 Navy GEORGIA Albany Weapons Storage and 15,600 15,600 Inspection Facility. Navy GEORGIA Savannah Townsend Bombing Range Land 61,717 61,717 Acq--Phase 1. Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Aircraft Maintenance 85,673 85,673 Hangar--North Ramp. Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas BAMS Forward Operational & 61,702 61,702 Maintenance Hangar. Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Dehumidified Supply Storage 17,170 17,170 Facility. Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Emergent Repair Facility 35,860 35,860 Expansion. Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Modular Storage Magazines.. 63,382 63,382 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Sierra Wharf Improvements.. 1,170 1,170 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas X-Ray Wharf Improvements... 53,420 53,420 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay 3rd Radio Bn Maintenance/ 25,336 25,336 Operations Complex. Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Aircraft Maintenance 16,968 16,968 Expansion. Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 31,820 31,820 Upgrades. Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Armory Addition and 12,952 12,952 Renovation. Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Aviation Simulator 17,724 17,724 Modernization/Addition. Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay MV-22 Hangar............... 57,517 57,517 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay MV-22 Parking Apron and 74,665 74,665 Infrastructure. Navy HAWAII Pearl City Water Transmission Line.... 30,100 30,100 Navy HAWAII Pearl Harbor Drydock Waterfront Facility 22,721 22,721 Navy HAWAII Pearl Harbor Submarine Production 35,277 35,277 Support Facility. Navy ILLINOIS Great Lakes Unaccompanied Housing...... 35,851 35,851 Navy MAINE Bangor NCTAMS VLF Commercial Power 13,800 13,800 Connection. Navy MAINE Kittery Structural Shops 11,522 11,522 Consolidation. Navy MARYLAND Fort Meade MARFORCYBERCOM HQ-OPS 83,988 83,988 Building. Navy NEVADA Fallon Wastewater Treatment Plant. 11,334 11,334 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Landfill--Phase 4.......... 20,795 20,795 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Operations Training Complex 22,515 22,515 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Steam Decentralization--BEQ 18,679 18,679 Nodes. Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Steam Decentralization-- 2,620 2,620 Camp Johnson. Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Steam Decentralization-- 13,390 13,390 Hadnot Point. Navy NORTH CAROLINA New River CH-53K Maintenance Training 13,218 13,218 Facility. Navy NORTH CAROLINA New River Corrosion Control Hangar... 12,547 12,547 Navy NORTH CAROLINA New River Regional Communication 20,098 20,098 Station. Navy OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB TACAMO E-6B Hangar......... 14,144 14,144 Navy RHODE ISLAND Newport Hewitt Hall Research Center 12,422 12,422 Navy SOUTH CAROLINA Charleston Nuclear Power Operational 73,932 73,932 Training Facility. Navy VIRGINIA Dam Neck Aerial Target Operation 10,587 10,587 Consolidation. Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk Pier 11 Power Upgrades for 3,380 3,380 CVN-78. Navy VIRGINIA Quantico Academic Instruction 25,731 25,731 Facility TECOM Schools. Navy VIRGINIA Quantico ATC Transmitter/Receiver 3,630 3,630 Relocation. Navy VIRGINIA Quantico Fuller Road Improvements... 9,013 9,013 Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown Small Arms Ranges.......... 18,700 18,700 Navy WASHINGTON Bremerton Integrated Water Treatment 18,189 18,189 Sys Dry Docks 3&4. Navy WASHINGTON Kitsap Explosives Handling Wharf 24,880 24,880 #2 (INC). Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island EA-18G Facility 32,482 32,482 Improvements. Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island P-8A Hangar and Training 85,167 85,167 Facilities. Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier Armory..................... 6,420 6,420 Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier Unaccompanied Housing...... 22,580 22,580 Navy JAPAN Camp Butler Airfield Security Upgrades. 5,820 5,820 Navy JAPAN Yokosuka Communication System 7,568 7,568 Upgrade. Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCON Design Funds.......... 89,830 89,830 Locations Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 19,740 19,740 Locations Construction. Total Military Construction, Navy 1,700,269 0 1,700,269 ........................... ........................... AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35 Field Training 5,500 5,500 Detachment. AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35 Sq Ops/Aircraft 21,400 21,400 Maintenance Unit #3. AF CALIFORNIA Beale AFB Distributed Common Ground 62,000 62,000 Station Ops Bldg. AF FLORIDA Tyndall AFB F-22 Munitions Storage 9,100 9,100 Complex. AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PAR--Fuel Sys Hardened 20,000 20,000 Bldgs. AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PAR--Strike Tactical 10,530 10,530 Missile Mxs Facility. AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PAR--Tanker GP Mx Hangar/ 132,600 132,600 AMU/Sqd Ops. AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC RED HORSE Airfield 8,500 8,500 Operations Facility. AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC SF Fire Rescue & 4,600 4,600 Emergency Mgt. AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A 2-Bay Corrosion 0 82,000 82,000 Control/Fuel Cell Hangar. AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A 3-Bay General 0 80,000 80,000 Purpose Maintenance Hangar. AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A Aircraft Parking 0 2,200 2,200 Apron Alteration. AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A Aprons Fuels 0 12,800 12,800 Distribution System. AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A Flight Simulator 0 2,150 2,150 Facility Phase 1. AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A General Maintenance 0 32,000 32,000 Hangar. AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A Miscellaneous 0 970 970 Facilities Alteration. AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A Pipeline Student 0 7,000 7,000 Dormatory. AF HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- C-17 Modernize Hgr 35, 4,800 4,800 Hickam Docks 1&2. AF KENTUCKY Fort Campbell 19th Air Support Operations 8,000 8,000 Sqdrn Expansion. AF MARYLAND Fort Meade CYBERCOM Joint Operations 85,000 85,000 Center, Increment 1. AF MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Helicopter Operations 30,000 30,000 Facility. AF MISSOURI Whiteman AFB WSA MOP Igloos and Assembly 5,900 5,900 Facility. AF NEBRASKA Offutt AFB USSTRATCOM Replacement 136,000 136,000 Facility, Incr 3. AF NEVADA Nellis AFB Add RPA Weapons School 20,000 20,000 Facility. AF NEVADA Nellis AFB Dormitory (240 RM)......... 35,000 35,000 AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35 Alt Mission Equip 5,000 5,000 (AME) Storage. AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35 Fuel Cell Hangar...... 9,400 9,400 AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35 Parts Store........... 9,100 9,100 AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Airmen and Family Readiness 5,500 5,500 Center. AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Dormitory (144 RM)......... 22,000 22,000 AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Satellite Dining Facility.. 6,600 6,600 AF NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB F-16 Aircraft Covered 2,250 2,250 Washrack and Pad. AF NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Nuclear Systems Wing & 30,500 30,500 Sustainment Center (Ph. AF NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB B-52 ADAL Aircraft 15,530 15,530 Maintenance Unit. AF NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB B-52 Munitions Storage 8,300 8,300 Igloos. AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU ADAL Fuel 0 3,350 3,350 Systems Maintenance Dock. AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU ADAL Squad Ops/ 0 7,400 7,400 AMU. AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU Flight Training 0 12,600 12,600 Center Simulators Facility Phase 1. AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU Fuselage Trainer 0 6,300 6,300 Phase 1. AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU Renovate 0 1,200 1,200 Facility. AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC-46A Land Acquisition.... 8,600 8,600 AF TEXAS Fort Bliss F-16 BAK 12/14 Aircraft 3,350 3,350 Arresting System. AF UTAH Hill AFB F-35 Aircraft Mx Unit 13,500 13,500 Hangar 45E Ops #1. AF UTAH Hill AFB Fire Crash Rescue Station.. 18,500 18,500 AF VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis 4-Bay Conventional 4,800 4,800 Munitions Inspection Bldg. AF GREENLAND Thule AB Thule Consolidation, Phase 43,904 43,904 2. AF MARIANA ISLANDS Saipan PAR--Airport POL/Bulk 18,500 18,500 Storage AST. AF MARIANA ISLANDS Saipan PAR--Hazardous Cargo Pad... 8,000 8,000 AF MARIANA ISLANDS Saipan PAR--Maintenance Facility.. 2,800 2,800 AF UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF Main Gate Complex.......... 12,000 -12,000 0 AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Lakenheath Guardian Angel Operations 22,047 22,047 Facility. AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide KC-46A FTU Facility 63,000 -63,000 0 Locations Projects. AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide KC-46A MOB #1 Facility 192,700 -192,700 0 Locations Projects. AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design.......... 11,314 11,314 Locations AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 20,448 20,448 Locations Construction. Total Military Construction, Air Force 1,156,573 -17,730 1,138,843 ........................... ........................... Def-Wide ALASKA Clear AFS BMDS Upgrade Early Warning 17,204 17,204 Radar. Def-Wide ALASKA Fort Greely Mechanical-Electrical Bldg 82,000 82,000 Missile Field #1. Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Brawley SOF Desert Warfare Training 23,095 23,095 Center. Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Defense Distribution Depot- General Purpose Warehouse.. 37,554 37,554 Tracy Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Miramar Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 6,000 6,000 Def-Wide COLORADO Fort Carson SOF Group Support Battalion 22,282 22,282 Def-Wide FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF ADD/ALTER Operations 7,900 7,900 Facility. Def-Wide FLORIDA Jacksonville Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 7,500 7,500 Def-Wide FLORIDA Key West SOF Boat Docks............. 3,600 -3,600 0 Def-Wide FLORIDA Panama City Replace Ground Vehicle 2,600 2,600 Fueling Facility. Def-Wide FLORIDA Tyndall AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 9,500 9,500 Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Benning Faith Middle School 6,031 6,031 Addition. Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Benning White Elemtary School 37,304 37,304 Replacement. Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Stewart Diamond Elementary School 44,504 44,504 Replacement. Def-Wide GEORGIA Hunter Army Airfield Replace Fuel Island........ 13,500 13,500 Def-Wide GEORGIA Moody AFB Replace Ground Vehicle 3,800 3,800 Fueling Facility. Def-Wide HAWAII Ford Island DISA Pacific Facility 2,615 2,615 Upgrades. Def-Wide HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Alter Warehouse Space...... 2,800 2,800 Hickam Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Fort Campbell High School 59,278 59,278 Replacement. Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Marshall Elementary School 38,591 38,591 Replacement. Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF Group Special Troops 26,342 26,342 Battalion. Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Knox Ambulatory Health Center... 265,000 265,000 Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Knox Consolidate/Replace Van 38,023 38,023 Voorhis-Mudge ES. Def-Wide MARYLAND Aberdeen Proving Ground Public Health Command Lab 210,000 -100,000 110,000 Replacement. Def-Wide MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Hospital Mech & Electrical 46,800 46,800 Improvements. Def-Wide MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Hospital Parking Garage............. 20,000 20,000 Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Detrick USAMRIID Replacement Stage 13,000 -13,000 0 1, Incr 8. Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade High Performance Computing 431,000 431,000 Capacity Inc 3. Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building 58,000 58,000 #1/Site M Inc 2. Def-Wide MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Ambulatory Care Center Inc 76,200 -12,400 63,800 2. Def-Wide MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB Hanscom Primary School 36,213 36,213 Replacement. Def-Wide NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Replace Fuel Distribution 10,000 10,000 Lakehurst Components. Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Medical Clinic Replacement. 60,000 60,000 Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System 21,400 21,400 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SOF Performance Resiliency 14,400 -14,400 0 Center. Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SOF Sustainment Training 28,977 28,977 Complex. Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Consolidate/Replace Pope 37,032 37,032 Holbrook Elementary. Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Civil Affairs Battalion 37,689 37,689 Annex. Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Combat Medic Skills 7,600 7,600 Sustain. Course Bldg. Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Engineer Training 10,419 10,419 Facility. Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Language and Cultural 64,606 64,606 Center. Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Upgrade Training 14,719 14,719 Facility. Def-Wide NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 6,400 6,400 Def-Wide OKLAHOMA Altus AFB Replace Refueler Parking... 2,100 2,100 Def-Wide OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB Replace Fuel Distribution 36,000 36,000 Facilities. Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA Def Distribution Depot New Upgrade Hazardous Material 3,100 3,100 Cumberland Warehouse. Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA Def Distribution Depot New Upgrade Public Safety 5,900 5,900 Cumberland Facility. Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA Beaufort Bolden Elementary/Middle 41,324 41,324 School Replacement. Def-Wide TENNESSEE Arnold Air Force Base Replace Ground Vehicle 2,200 2,200 Fueling Facility. Def-Wide TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement Incr 5 252,100 -100,000 152,100 Def-Wide TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio SAMMC Hyperbaric Facility 12,600 12,600 Addition. Def-Wide VIRGINIA Dam Neck SOF Human Performance 11,147 -11,147 0 Center. Def-Wide VIRGINIA Def Distribution Depot Operations Center Phase 1.. 87,000 87,000 Richmond Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base SOF LOGSU Two Operations 30,404 30,404 Little Creek--Story Facility. Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Boundary Channel Access 6,700 6,700 Control Point. Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Pentagon South Pedestrian 1,850 1,850 Safety Project. Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon PFPA Support Operations 14,800 14,800 Center. Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Raven Rock Administrative 32,000 32,000 Facility Upgrade. Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Raven Rock Exterior Cooling 4,100 4,100 Tower. Def-Wide VIRGINIA Quantico Quantico Middle/High School 40,586 40,586 Replacement. Def-Wide WASHINGTON Whidbey Island Replace Fuel Pier 10,000 10,000 Breakwater. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location AN/TPY-2 Radar Site........ 15,000 15,000 Def-Wide BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Medical/Dental Clinic 45,400 45,400 Replacement. Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels NATO Headquarters Facility. 38,513 38,513 Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels NATO Headquarters Fit-Out.. 29,100 29,100 Def-Wide GERMANY Kaiserlautern AB Kaiserslautern Elementary 49,907 49,907 School Replacement. Def-Wide GERMANY Ramstein AB Ramstein High School 98,762 98,762 Replacement. Def-Wide GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement, 151,545 151,545 Incr 3. Def-Wide GERMANY Weisbaden Hainerberg Elementary 58,899 58,899 School Replacement. Def-Wide GERMANY Weisbaden Wiesbaden Middle School 50,756 50,756 Replacement. Def-Wide JAPAN Atsugi Replace Ground Vehicle 4,100 4,100 Fueling Facility. Def-Wide JAPAN Iwakuni Construct Hydrant Fuel 34,000 34,000 System. Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB Kadena Middle School 38,792 38,792 Addition/Renovation. Def-Wide JAPAN Torri Commo Station SOF Facility Augmentation.. 71,451 -7,380 64,071 Def-Wide JAPAN Yokosuka Upgrade Fuel Pumps......... 10,600 10,600 Def-Wide KOREA Camp Walker Daegu Middle/High School 52,164 52,164 Replacement. Def-Wide ROMANIA Deveselu Aegis Ashore Missile Def 85,000 -5,000 80,000 Sys Cmplx, Increm. 2. Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall Replace Fuel Storage....... 17,732 17,732 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF Airfield Pavements and 0 48,448 48,448 Hangar/AMU. Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF Airfiled Pavements..... 24,077 -24,077 0 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF Hangar/AMU............. 24,371 -24,371 0 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF MRSP and Parts Storage. 6,797 6,797 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF Squadron Operations 11,652 11,652 Facility. Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Lakenheath Lakenheath High School 69,638 69,638 Replacement. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Contingency Construction... 10,000 -10,000 0 Locations Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Energy Conservation 150,000 150,000 Locations Investment Program. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Exercise Related Minor 9,730 9,730 Locations Construction. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design.......... 10,891 10,891 Locations Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 75,905 75,905 Locations Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 36,866 36,866 Locations Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 6,931 6,931 Locations Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 50,192 50,192 Locations Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 57,053 57,053 Locations Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 2,000 2,000 Locations Construction. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 7,430 7,430 Locations Construction. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 5,170 5,170 Locations Construction. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 5,409 5,409 Locations Construction. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 1,500 1,500 Locations Construction. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 9,578 9,578 Locations Construction. Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000 Locations Construction. Total Military Construction, Defense-Wide 3,985,300 -276,927 3,708,373 ........................... ........................... Chem Demil KENTUCKY Blue Grass Army Depot Ammunition Demilitarization 122,536 122,536 Facility, Ph XIV. Total Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense 122,536 0 122,536 ........................... ........................... NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Nato Security Investment Nato Security Investment 239,700 -40,000 199,700 Program Program. Total NATO Security Investment Program 239,700 -40,000 199,700 ........................... ........................... Army NG ALABAMA Decatur National Guard Readiness 4,000 4,000 Center Add/Alt. Army NG ARKANSAS Fort Chaffee Scout/RECCE Gunnery Complex 21,000 21,000 Army NG FLORIDA Pinellas Park Ready Building............. 5,700 5,700 Army NG ILLINOIS Kankakee Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 28,000 28,000 Army NG ILLINOIS Kankakee Readiness Center........... 14,000 14,000 Army NG MASSACHUSETTS Camp Edwards Enlisted Barracks, 19,000 19,000 Transient Training Add. Army NG MICHIGAN Camp Grayling Enlisted Barracks, 17,000 17,000 Transient Training. Army NG MINNESOTA Stillwater Readiness Center........... 17,000 17,000 Army NG MISSISSIPPI Camp Shelby Water Supply/Treatment 3,000 3,000 Building, Potable. Army NG MISSISSIPPI Pascagoula Readiness Center........... 4,500 4,500 Army NG MISSOURI Macon Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 9,100 9,100 Army NG MISSOURI Whiteman AFB Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 5,000 5,000 Army NG NEW YORK New York Readiness Center Add/Alt... 31,000 31,000 Army NG OHIO Ravenna Army Ammunition Sanitary Sewer............. 5,200 5,200 Plant Army NG PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Aircraft Maintenance 40,000 40,000 Instructional Building. Army NG PUERTO RICO Camp Santiago Maneuver Area Training & 5,600 5,600 Equipment Site Addit. Army NG SOUTH CAROLINA Greenville Readiness Center........... 13,000 13,000 Army NG SOUTH CAROLINA Greenville Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 13,000 13,000 Army NG TEXAS Fort Worth Armed Forces Reserve Center 14,270 14,270 Add. Army NG WYOMING Afton National Guard Readiness 10,200 10,200 Center. Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 29,005 -5,000 24,005 Locations Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 12,240 12,240 Locations Construction. Total Military Construction, Army National Guard 320,815 -5,000 315,815 ........................... ........................... Army Res CALIFORNIA Camp Parks Army Reserve Center........ 17,500 17,500 Army Res CALIFORNIA Fort Hunter Liggett TASS Training Center (TTC). 16,500 16,500 Army Res MARYLAND Bowie Army Reserve Center........ 25,500 25,500 Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Automated Multipurpose 9,500 9,500 Lakehurst Machine Gun (MPMG). Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Central Issue Facility..... 7,900 7,900 Lakehurst Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Consolidated Dining 13,400 13,400 Lakehurst Facility. Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Modified Record Fire Range. 5,400 5,400 Lakehurst Army Res NEW YORK Bullville Army Reserve Center........ 14,500 14,500 Army Res NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Army Reserve Center........ 24,500 24,500 Army Res WISCONSIN Fort Mccoy Access Control Point/Mail/ 17,500 17,500 Freight Center. Army Res WISCONSIN Fort Mccoy NCO Academy Dining Facility 5,900 5,900 Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 14,212 14,212 Locations Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 1,748 1,748 Locations Construction. Total Military Construction, Army Reserve 174,060 0 174,060 ........................... ........................... N/MC Res CALIFORNIA March AFB NOSC Moreno Valley Reserve 11,086 11,086 Training Center. N/MC Res MISSOURI Kansas City Reserve Training Center-- 15,020 15,020 Belton, Missouri. N/MC Res TENNESSEE Memphis Reserve Boat Maintenance 4,330 4,330 and Storage Facility. N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR Planning & Design..... 1,500 1,500 Locations N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide USMCR Planning and Design.. 1,040 1,040 Locations Total Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve 32,976 0 32,976 ........................... ........................... Air NG ALABAMA Birmingham IAP Add to and Alter 8,500 8,500 Distributed Ground Station F. Air NG INDIANA Hulman Regional Airport Add/Alter Bldg 37 For Dist 7,300 7,300 Common Ground Sta. Air NG MARYLAND Fort Meade 175th Network Warfare 4,000 -4,000 0 Squadron Facility. Air NG MARYLAND Martin State Airport CYBER/ISR Facility......... 8,000 -8,000 0 Air NG MONTANA Great Falls IAP Intra-Theater Airlift 22,000 22,000 Conversion. Air NG NEW YORK Fort Drum MQ-9 Flight Training Unit 4,700 4,700 Hangar. Air NG OHIO Springfield Beckley-Map Alter Intelligence 7,200 7,200 Operations Facility. Air NG PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Communications Operations 7,700 7,700 and Training Facili. Air NG RHODE ISLAND Quonset State Airport C-130J Flight Simulator 6,000 6,000 Training Facility. Air NG TENNESSEE Mcghee-Tyson Airport TEC Expansion- Dormitory & 18,000 18,000 Classroom Facility. Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design........ 13,400 13,400 Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor 13,000 13,000 Construction. Total Military Construction, Air National Guard 119,800 -12,000 107,800 ........................... ........................... AF Res CALIFORNIA March AFB Joint Regional Deployment 19,900 19,900 Processing Center,. AF Res FLORIDA Homestead AFS Entry Control Complex...... 9,800 9,800 AF Res OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB Air Control Group Squadron 12,200 12,200 Operations. AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design........ 2,229 2,229 AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor 1,530 1,530 Construction. Total Military Construction, Air Force Reserve 45,659 0 45,659 ........................... ........................... FH Con Army WISCONSIN Fort Mccoy Family Housing New 23,000 23,000 Construction (56 units). FH Con Army GERMANY South Camp Vilseck Family Housing New 16,600 16,600 Construction (29 units). FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing P & D....... 4,408 4,408 Locations Total Family Housing Construction, Army 44,008 0 44,008 ........................... ........................... FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings................ 33,125 33,125 Locations FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leased Housing............. 180,924 180,924 Locations FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 107,639 107,639 Locations Property Facilities. FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account......... 54,433 54,433 Locations FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Military Housing 25,661 25,661 Locations Privitization Initiative. FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous.............. 646 646 Locations FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services................... 13,536 13,536 Locations FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.................. 96,907 96,907 Locations Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Army 512,871 0 512,871 ........................... ........................... FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Improvements............... 72,093 72,093 Locations FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 4,267 4,267 Locations Total Family Housing Construction, Air Force 76,360 0 76,360 ........................... ........................... FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account........ 39,470 39,470 Locations FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization...... 41,436 41,436 Locations FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing.................... 54,514 54,514 Locations FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance (RPMA RPMC).... 110,786 110,786 Locations FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account......... 53,044 53,044 Locations FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous Account...... 1,954 1,954 Locations FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account........... 16,862 16,862 Locations FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account.......... 70,532 70,532 Locations Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Air Force 388,598 0 388,598 ........................... ........................... FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Design..................... 4,438 4,438 Locations FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Improvements............... 68,969 68,969 Locations Total Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps 73,407 0 73,407 ........................... ........................... FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account........ 21,073 21,073 Locations FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing.................... 74,962 74,962 Locations FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 90,122 90,122 Locations Property. FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account......... 60,782 60,782 Locations FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous Account...... 362 362 Locations FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Privatization Support Costs 27,634 27,634 Locations FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account........... 20,596 20,596 Locations FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account.......... 94,313 94,313 Locations Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps 389,844 0 389,844 ........................... ........................... FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account........ 67 67 Locations FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account........ 20 20 Locations FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account........ 3,196 3,196 Locations FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing.................... 10,994 10,994 Locations FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing.................... 40,433 40,433 Locations FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 311 311 Locations Property. FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 74 74 Locations Property. FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account......... 418 418 Locations FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account........... 32 32 Locations FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account.......... 288 288 Locations FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account.......... 12 12 Locations Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide 55,845 0 55,845 ........................... ........................... FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing Improvement 1,780 1,780 Locations Fund. Total DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund 1,780 0 1,780 ........................... ........................... BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Base Realignment and 180,401 180,401 Army Closure. BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Base Realignment & Closure. 108,300 108,300 Navy BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DoD BRAC Activities--Air 126,376 126,376 Locations Force. BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-100: Planing, Design 7,277 7,277 Locations and Management. BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-101: Various Locations. 20,988 20,988 Locations BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-138: NAS Brunswick, ME. 993 993 Locations BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-157: MCSA Kansas City, 40 40 Locations MO. BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-172: NWS Seal Beach, 5,766 5,766 Locations Concord, CA. BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-84: JRB Willow Grove & 1,216 1,216 Locations Cambria Reg AP. Total Base Realignment and Closure Account 451,357 0 451,357 ........................... ........................... PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Savings--ANG 0 -45,623 -45,623 Locations Unspecified Minor Construction. PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Savings--Army 0 -14,000 -14,000 Locations Bid Savings. PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Savings--Army 0 -50,000 -50,000 Locations Planning and Design FY12. PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Savings--Defense 0 -358,400 -358,400 Locations Wide Bid Savings. PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Savings--Defense 0 -16,470 -16,470 Locations Wide Unspecified Minor Construction. PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Savings--Navy 0 -49,920 -49,920 Locations Bid Savings. PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Savings--Section 0 -50,000 -50,000 Locations 1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, as amended. Total Prior Year Savings 0 -584,413 -584,413 ........................... ........................... Total Military Construction 11,011,633 -938,340 10,073,293 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- House Program FY 2014 Request House Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Electricity delivery and energy reliability......... 16,000 -16,000 0 Nuclear Energy...................................... 94,000 0 94,000 Atomic Energy Defense Activities National nuclear security administration: Weapons activities................................ 7,868,409 220,000 8,088,409 Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 2,140,142 0 2,140,142 Naval reactors.................................... 1,246,134 0 1,246,134 Office of the administrator....................... 397,784 -8,000 389,784 Total, National nuclear security administration..... 11,652,469 212,000 11,864,469 Environmental and other defense activities: Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,316,909 -358,000 4,958,909 Other defense activities.......................... 749,080 0 749,080 Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,065,989 -358,000 5,707,989 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 17,718,458 -146,000 17,572,458 Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 17,828,458 -162,000 17,666,458 Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability Infrastructure security & energy restoration (HS)..... 16,000 -16,000 0 Nuclear Energy Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 94,000 94,000 Weapons Activities Life extension programs and major alterations B61 Life extension program.......................... 537,044 44,000 581,044 W76 Life extension program.......................... 235,382 9,700 245,082 W78/88-1 Life extension program..................... 72,691 5,600 78,291 W88 ALT 370......................................... 169,487 169,487 Total, Stockpile assessment and design................ 1,014,604 59,300 1,073,904 Stockpile systems B61 Stockpile systems............................... 83,536 83,536 W76 Stockpile systems............................... 47,187 47,187 W78 Stockpile systems............................... 54,381 54,381 W80 Stockpile systems............................... 50,330 50,330 B83 Stockpile systems............................... 54,948 6,000 60,948 W87 Stockpile systems............................... 101,506 101,506 W88 Stockpile systems............................... 62,600 62,600 Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 454,488 6,000 460,488 Weapons dismantlement and disposition Operations and maintenance.......................... 49,264 49,264 Stockpile services Production support.................................. 321,416 29,600 351,016 Research and development support.................... 26,349 3,200 29,549 R&D certification and safety........................ 191,259 18,300 209,559 Management, technology, and production.............. 214,187 214,187 Plutonium sustainment............................... 156,949 9,500 166,449 Total, Stockpile services............................. 910,160 60,600 970,760 Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 2,428,516 125,900 2,554,416 Campaigns: Science campaign Advanced certification.............................. 54,730 54,730 Primary assessment technologies..................... 109,231 109,231 Dynamic materials properties........................ 116,965 116,965 Advanced radiography................................ 30,509 30,509 Secondary assessment technologies................... 86,467 86,467 Total, Science campaign............................... 397,902 0 397,902 Engineering campaign Enhanced surety..................................... 51,771 2,500 54,271 Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 23,727 23,727 Nuclear survivability............................... 19,504 19,504 Enhanced surveillance............................... 54,909 4,000 58,909 Total, Engineering campaign........................... 149,911 6,500 156,411 Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign Ignition............................................ 80,245 80,245 Support of other stockpile programs................. 15,001 15,001 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 59,897 59,897 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 5,024 5,024 Joint program in high energy density laboratory 8,198 8,198 plasmas............................................ Facility operations and target production........... 232,678 232,678 Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield 401,043 0 401,043 campaign............................................. Advanced simulation and computing campaign............ 564,329 564,329 Readiness Campaign Component manufacturing development................. 106,085 106,085 Tritium readiness................................... 91,695 91,695 Total, Readiness campaign............................. 197,780 0 197,780 Total, Campaigns........................................ 1,710,965 6,500 1,717,465 Nuclear programs Nuclear operations capability......................... 265,937 265,937 Capabilities based investments........................ 39,558 39,558 Construction: 12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL................. 26,722 26,722 11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL... 30,679 30,679 07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility 55,719 55,719 upgrade project, LANL.............................. 06-D-141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities 325,835 325,835 Replacement Project Y-12........................... Total, Construction................................... 438,955 0 438,955 Total, Nuclear programs................................. 744,450 0 744,450 Secure transportation asset Operations and equipment.............................. 122,072 122,072 Program direction..................................... 97,118 97,118 Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 219,190 0 219,190 Site stewardship Nuclear materials integration......................... 17,679 17,679 Corporate project management.......................... 13,017 13,017 Minority serving institution partnerships program..... 14,531 14,531 Enterprise infrastructure Site Operations..................................... 1,112,455 1,112,455 Site Support........................................ 109,561 109,561 Sustainment......................................... 433,764 65,100 498,864 Facilities disposition.............................. 5,000 5,000 Subtotal, Enterprise infrastructure................... 1,660,780 65,100 1,725,880 Total, Site stewardship................................. 1,706,007 65,100 1,771,107 Defense nuclear security Operations and maintenance............................ 664,981 664,981 Construction: 14-D-710 DAF Argus, NNSS............................ 14,000 14,000 Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 678,981 0 678,981 NNSA CIO activities..................................... 148,441 22,500 170,941 Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 279,597 279,597 Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................. 7,916,147 220,000 8,136,147 Adjustments Use of prior year balances............................ -47,738 -47,738 Total, Adjustments...................................... -47,738 0 -47,738 Total, Weapons Activities................................. 7,868,409 220,000 8,088,409 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs Global threat reduction initiative.................... 424,487 23,000 447,487 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D Operations and maintenance.......................... 388,838 388,838 Nonproliferation and international security........... 141,675 141,675 International material protection and cooperation..... 369,625 -23,000 346,625 Fissile materials disposition U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition Operations and maintenance U.S. plutonium disposition...................... 157,557 157,557 U.S. uranium disposition........................ 25,000 25,000 Total, Operations and maintenance................. 182,557 0 182,557 Construction: 99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, 320,000 320,000 Savannah River, SC............................. Total, Construction............................... 320,000 0 320,000 Total, U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition... 502,557 0 502,557 Total, Fissile materials disposition.................. 502,557 0 502,557 Legacy contractor pensions............................ 93,703 93,703 Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........ 1,920,885 0 1,920,885 Nuclear counterterrorism incident response program...... 181,293 181,293 Counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs...... 74,666 74,666 Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.............. 2,176,844 0 2,176,844 Adjustments Use of prior year balances............................ -36,702 -36,702 Total, Adjustments...................................... -36,702 0 -36,702 Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 2,140,142 0 2,140,142 Naval Reactors Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 455,740 -2,000 453,740 Naval reactors development.............................. 419,400 419,400 Ohio replacement reactor systems development............ 126,400 126,400 S8G Prototype refueling................................. 144,400 144,400 Program direction....................................... 44,404 44,404 Construction: 14-D-902 KL Materials characterization laboratory 1,000 1,000 expansion, KAPL...................................... 14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 45,400 45,400 NRF.................................................. 13-D-905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL. 21,073 21,073 13-D-904 KS Radiological work and storage building, 600 2,000 2,600 KSO.................................................. Naval Reactor Facility, ID............................ 1,700 1,700 Total, Construction..................................... 69,773 2,000 71,773 Subtotal, Naval Reactors.................................. 1,260,117 0 1,260,117 Adjustments: Use of prior year balances (Naval reactors)........... -13,983 -13,983 Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,246,134 0 1,246,134 Office Of The Administrator Office of the administrator............................. 397,784 -8,000 389,784 Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 397,784 -8,000 389,784 Defense Environmental Cleanup Closure sites: Closure sites administration.......................... 4,702 4,702 Hanford site: River corridor and other cleanup operations........... 393,634 393,634 Central plateau remediation........................... 513,450 513,450 Richland community and regulatory support............. 14,701 14,701 Total, Hanford site..................................... 921,785 0 921,785 Idaho National Laboratory: Idaho cleanup and waste disposition................... 362,100 362,100 Idaho community and regulatory support................ 2,910 2,910 Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 365,010 0 365,010 NNSA sites Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,476 1,476 Nuclear facility D & D Separations Process Research 23,700 23,700 Unit................................................. Nevada................................................ 61,897 61,897 Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 2,814 2,814 Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 219,789 219,789 Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 309,676 0 309,676 Oak Ridge Reservation: OR Nuclear facility D & D............................. 73,716 73,716 OR cleanup and disposition............................ 115,855 115,855 OR reservation community and regulatory support....... 4,365 4,365 Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 193,936 0 193,936 Office of River Protection: Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01-D-416 A-E/ORP-0060 / Major construction.......... 690,000 690,000 Tank farm activities Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 520,216 520,216 Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,210,216 0 1,210,216 Savannah River sites: Savannah River risk management operations............. 432,491 432,491 SR community and regulatory support................... 11,210 11,210 Radioactive liquid tank waste: Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 552,560 95,000 647,560 disposition........................................ Construction: 05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 92,000 92,000 River............................................ Total, Construction................................. 92,000 0 92,000 Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 644,560 95,000 739,560 Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,088,261 95,000 1,183,261 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Waste isolation pilot plant........................... 203,390 203,390 Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................... 203,390 0 203,390 Program direction....................................... 280,784 280,784 Program support......................................... 17,979 17,979 Safeguards and Security: Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 18,800 18,800 Paducah............................................... 9,435 9,435 Portsmouth............................................ 8,578 8,578 Richland/Hanford Site................................. 69,078 69,078 Savannah River Site................................... 121,196 121,196 Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 4,977 4,977 West Valley........................................... 2,015 2,015 Technology development.................................. 24,091 10,000 34,091 Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 4,853,909 105,000 4,958,909 Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................ 463,000 -463,000 0 Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,316,909 -358,000 4,958,909 Other Defense Activities Health, safety and security Health, safety and security........................... 143,616 143,616 Program direction..................................... 108,301 108,301 Total, Health, safety and security...................... 251,917 0 251,917 Specialized security activities......................... 196,322 196,322 Office of Legacy Management Legacy management..................................... 163,271 163,271 Program direction..................................... 13,712 13,712 Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 176,983 0 176,983 Defense-related activities Defense related administrative support Chief financial officer............................... 38,979 38,979 Chief information officer............................. 79,857 79,857 Total, Defense related administrative support........... 118,836 0 118,836 Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 5,022 5,022 Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 749,080 0 749,080 Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 749,080 0 749,080 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below: April 26, 2013. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed legislation, titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014'', that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 113th Congress. The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. The PAYGO effects of section 701 (Revisions to TRICARE cost sharing requirements) are: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Years (deficit decreases in millions of dollars) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Direct Spending Effects................................ 9 98 181 298 515 666 810 987 1,158 1,328 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, Elizabeth King. Enclosure: As Stated ------ May 7, 2013. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 113th Congress. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section- by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014''. The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, Elizabeth King. Enclosure: As Stated ------ May 15, 2013. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 113th Congress. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section- by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014''. The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, Elizabeth L. King Enclosure: As Stated ------ May 22, 2013. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 113th Congress. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section- by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014''. The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, Elizabeth L. King. Enclosure: As Stated ------ COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This is, of course, conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Further, I request your support for the appointment of Science, Space, and Technology Committee conferees during any House-Senate conference convened on this and any similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest be placed in the legislative report on H.R. 1960 and the Congressional Record during consideration of this measure on the House floor. I look forward to working with you on this important legislation. Sincerely, Lamar Smith, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Natural Resources in matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the House. The Committee on Natural Resources also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Doc Hastings, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The section provisions attached to this letter contain subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, the committee waives consideration of these provisions. The Committee on Veterans Affairs takes this action only with the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1960 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. With warm personal regards I am, Sincerely, Jeff Miller, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which contains substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate the cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually agreeable text on numerous matters prior to your markup. Based on that cooperation and our associated understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the bill text approved at your Committee markup. However, this decision in no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interests of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I request your support for the appointment of House Foreign Affairs conferees during any House-Senate conference on this legislation. As the committee with legislative jurisdiction over U.S. intervention abroad and declarations of war, and as the traditional committee of sole referral for legislative authorizations for the use of military force (including the post-9/11 AUMF enacted as Public Law 107-40), the Foreign Affairs Committee requires knowledge of where, and against whom, such authority is used. For that reason, I appreciate your commitment to add the Foreign Affairs Committee as a recipient of the reporting required by section 1038 of the Chairman's mark, and to include additional language in your Committee report to expressly note that any reports required by section 1041 are in addition to War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93- 148) reporting, which should continue. Finally, I respectfully request that you include this letter and your response in your committee report on the bill, and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1960 on the House floor. Sincerely, Edward R. Royce, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC June 7, 2013. Hon. Edward R. Royce, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Foreign Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this legislation, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference committee named to consider such provisions. Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee report on H.R. 1960 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Sincerely, Bill Shuster, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on the Judiciary in matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the House. The Committee on the Judiciary also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the House. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Darrell Issa, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 1960 on those matters within the committee's jurisdiction. In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of H.R. 1960, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only with the understanding that this procedural route will not be construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the future. I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on H.R. 1960 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, John Kline, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 1960, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.'' I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action on H.R. 1960 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. This is done with the understanding that the Committee's jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In addition, the Committee reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 1960 and requests your support when such a request is made. I would appreciate your response confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1960 and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Sincerely, Fred Upton, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of expediting the passage of H.R. 1960, the ``National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2014,'' the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further consideration of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional interests in several provisions of H.R. 1960, including intelligence and intelligence-related authorizations and provisions contained in the bill and provisions that may affect sensitive reporting with respect to covert action. The Committee has specific and unresolved concerns with respect to certain provisions of the bill, and takes this action only with the understanding that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or any similar bill and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee in the future. In addition, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during the House debate on H.R. 1960. I appreciate the constructive work between our committees on this matter and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mike Rogers, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Mike Rogers, Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: On June 6, 2013, the Committee on Armed Services ordered H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as amended, to be reported favorably to the House. As a result of your having consulted with the Committee on Financial Services concerning provisions of the bill that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our committee from further consideration of the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor. The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1960, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for any such request. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, as amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your committee's report to accompany the legislation and/or in the Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof. Sincerely, Jeb Hensarling, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Jeb Hensarling, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has valid jurisdictional claims to a certain provision in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Financial Services is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which was expected to be marked up in the Committee on Armed Services this week. In order to expedite House consideration of H.R. 1960, the Committee on the Budget will forgo action on the bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration. Sincerely, Paul Ryan, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Budget is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Agriculture in matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the House. I also ask that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Frank D. Lucas, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Frank D. Lucas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Agriculture has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Agriculture is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to you regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. There are certain provisions of this legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed Services to proceed expeditiously to the House floor, I will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1960. However, I do so only with the mutual understanding that the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security over matters contained in this or similar legislation is in no way diminished or altered. I further request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this Committee to any conference committee that is named to consider such provisions. I request that you include this letter and your response into the committee report on H.R. 1960 and into the Congressional Record. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael T. McCaul, Chairman. ------ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. Hon. Michael T. McCaul, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I am most appreciative of your support and interest in this important legislation. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman. FISCAL DATA Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2014 and each of the following 5 fiscal years. The results of such efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate, which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE June 7, 2013. Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on June 6, 2013. CBO's complete cost estimate for H.R. 1960, including discretionary costs, will be provided shortly. Based on legislative language for H.R. 1960 that was provided to CBO from May 30 through June 5, CBO estimates that enacting this bill would decrease net direct spending by $26 million in 2014, $18 million over the 2014-2018 period, and $2 million over the 2014-2023 period (see attached table). Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The largest costs over that 10-year period result from a provision that would authorize special immigrant visas for certain Iraqi and Afghan allies and a provision that would increase spending from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to acquire additional materials. H.R. 1960 also would increase spending for Tricare beneficiaries whose eligibility derives from service in the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Uniformed Corps of the Public Health Service and for loan guarantees made by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Those costs would be offset by savings from a provision that would modify the calculation for computing the amount of the initial retirement benefit for certain military retirees. Enacting H.R. 1960 also would decrease revenues by requiring that certain payments made to a small number of servicemembers be treated as nontaxable income; however, CBO estimates that those effects would be insignificant for each year. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman, who can be reached at 226-2840. Sincerely, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director. STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344): (1) This legislation does not provide budget authority subject to an allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of Public Law 93-344; (2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives contains CBO's projection of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for fiscal year 2014 and for the ensuring 5 fiscal years; and (3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget authority for assistance to state and local governments by this measure at the time that this report was filed. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill. ADVISORY OF EARMARKS The committee finds that H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as reported, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are reflected in the body of this report. With respect to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the estimate prepared by the committee under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of H.R. 1960 is to meet the national security needs of a nation at war while preparing our warfighters for the threats of tomorrow wherever and whenever they might emerge. This legislation would meet that goal while taking steps to make the difficult choices of fiscal stewardship incumbent upon Congress in a time of economic stress. Only by providing for the common defense in an efficient, fiscally responsible manner can the nation address our national security challenges. The bill would sustain equipment and weapon systems vital to the success of our service men and women while taking steps to provide them more efficiently. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee took steps to promote competition and to provide authorities to the Department of Defense to procure systems more cost-effectively. The committee bill would also modify quarterly reporting requirements for major programs, to require that the Secretary of Defense report not only on a program's baseline cost estimate, but also to provide detailed information regarding the Department's assessment of the risk and sensitivity associated with that estimate, including an identification of the primary risk parameters associated with that point estimate. By including this requirement, the committee hopes to identify acquisition programs that are at highest risk for cost growth early and monitor fluctuations in the Department's confidence in its cost estimation on a quarterly basis. The committee would also require reporting on estimated termination liability for major weapon systems. The committee believes that a greater understanding of termination liability would inform both the Department and the Congress of likely outcomes for troubled acquisition programs. The committee continues to reiterate the need for fiscal accountability and transparency. Elsewhere in this report, the committee would note the importance of achieving a clean financial audit by 2017 and would impose a similar requirement for 2018. Likewise, the committee continues to advocate for the Department to make personnel resourcing decisions within the context of total force management, considering the appropriate mix of military, civilians, and contractors to perform the Department's missions. The committee bill would ensure that end strength requests are within the limitations for reductions set by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), in light of concerns that budgetary pressures will force each service to reduce its end strength too quickly and to divest vital battlefield experience and know how. At the same time, the committee takes steps to reduce bureaucracy within the headquarters functions of various agencies and combatant commands. On the battlefield, the committee would expand authorities aimed at combating contracting with the enemy, to ensure taxpayer dollars are not inadvertently going to opposing forces. This measure would expand efforts that have worked well within U.S. Central Command. The bill also would examine the strength of the national defense strategic planning process in order to provide a solid basis for future Quadrennial Defense Reviews. The committee would task the National Defense Panel, established by section 118 of title 10, United States Code, to also incorporate an assessment of the ongoing Strategic Choices and Management Review into the Panel's assessment of the 2013 Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee believes that proper strategic planning, particularly when conducted regularly and within authorized frameworks, can reduce waste while protecting the joint warfighting capability of the Department of Defense from arbitrary cuts. STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this legislation contains no Federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the bill provides no Federal intergovernmental mandates. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation. APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH The committee finds that this legislation does not relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1). DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS No provision of H.R. 1960 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS The committee estimates that H.R. 1960 requires 11 directed rule makings. COMMITTEE VOTES In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 1960. The record of these votes is contained in the following pages. The committee ordered H.R. 1960 to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 59-2, a quorum being present. COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 1 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Duckworth amendment, Log 175r2. Description: Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of additional F-35 aircraft and F-135 engines. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 10 51 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 2 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Smith amendment, Log 086. Description: Strike and replace sec. 2711 of the mark with language that would clarify that nothing in the Act shall be construed to authorize an additional BRAC round in 2014 and 2015. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 18 44 00 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 3 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Andrews amendment, Log 016. Description: Extends the limitation on aggregate annual amount available for contract services through FY2015. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 37 25 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 4 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Lamborn amendment, Log 142. Description: Would prohibit the purchase or lease of electric vehicles if a cheaper conventional vehicle option is available. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x .......... Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x .......... Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x .......... Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x .......... Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x .......... Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x .......... Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x .......... Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x .......... Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x .......... Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x .......... Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x .......... Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x .......... Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x .......... Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x .......... Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x .......... Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x .......... Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Roby..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x .......... Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 31 31 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 5 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Enyart amendment, Log 063r1. Description: Shall require all military services to use a joint combat camouflage uniform, including color and pattern variants designed for specific combat environments. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 30 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 6 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Andrews amendment, Log 021r1. Description: Inclusion in the chaplain corps of persons available to provide guidance and counsel to members of the Armed Forces who are atheist, agnostic, or belong to no organized faith group. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen*..... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 18 43 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Pursuant to Rule 17(d) of the Committee on Armed Services rules, members of the committee who were unable to vote during the committee markup because they were in attendance at other committee, subcommittee, or conference committee meeting are noted by asterisk. COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 7 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Fleming amendment, Log 266. Description: Clarifies religious freedom protections for members of the Armed Forces and directs the Secretary of Defense to consult with official military faith-group representatives in issuing regulations for such protections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ ........ x Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x .......... Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ ........ x Mr. Brady....... ........ x .......... Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x .......... Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x .......... Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x .......... Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x .......... Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x .......... Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x .......... Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x .......... Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x .......... Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ ........ x Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x .......... Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x .......... Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x .......... Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x .......... Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x .......... Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x .......... Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x .......... Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Roby..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x .......... Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 26 3 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 8 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Turner amendment, Log 003. Description: Additional missile defense site in the US for optimized protection of the homeland. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x .......... Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x .......... Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x .......... Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x .......... Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x .......... Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x .......... Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x .......... Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x .......... Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x .......... Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x .......... Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x .......... Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x .......... Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x .......... Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x .......... Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x .......... Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x .......... Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Roby..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x .......... Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 27 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 9 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Garamendi amendment, Log 218r1. Description: Reduces funding for ballistic missile defense midcourse segment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 36 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 10 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Turner amendment, Log 004. Description: Limitation on availability of funds or consolidation of dual-capable aircraft based in Europe. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x .......... Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x .......... Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x .......... Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x .......... Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x .......... Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x .......... Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x .......... Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x .......... Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x .......... Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x .......... Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x .......... Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x .......... Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x .......... Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x .......... Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x .......... Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x .......... Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x .......... Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x .......... Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Roby..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x .......... Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 30 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 11 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Lamborn amendment, Log 106. Description: Limitation on availability of funds for Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x .......... Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x .......... Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x .......... Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x .......... Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x .......... Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x .......... Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x .......... Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x .......... Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x .......... Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x .......... Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x .......... Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x .......... Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x .......... Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x .......... Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x .......... Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x .......... Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x .......... Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x .......... Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Roby..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x .......... Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 29 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 12 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Sanchez amendment, Log 057. Description: Reduce the total amount of NNSA nuclear weapons activities to the President's budget. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 13 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Larsen amendment, Log 009. Description: Strike section 3202. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 28 34 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 14 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Larsen amendment, Log 010. Description: Strike section 3112. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 15 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Veasey amendment, Log 138. Description: Would strike section 3120. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 28 34 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 16 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Smith amendment, Log 244. Description: Would strike section 1035. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x .......... Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 23 38 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 17 H.R. 1960 On agreeing to the Cooper amendment, Log 275. Description: Increases transfer authority to $20 billion. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x .......... Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ .......... Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x .......... Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x .......... Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x .......... Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x .......... Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x .......... Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x .......... Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ .......... Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x .......... Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ .......... Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x .......... Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x .......... Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x .......... Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 16 45 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 113th Congress ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 18 H.R. 1960 Description: On motion by Mr. Thornberry to report the bill H.R. 1960, as amended, favorably to the House, with a recommendation that it do pass. Wednesday, June 05, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ .......... Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ .......... Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ .......... Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ .......... Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ .......... Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ .......... Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ .......... Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ .......... Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ .......... Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ .......... Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ .......... Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ .......... Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x .......... Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ .......... Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ .......... Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x .......... Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ .......... Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ .......... Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ .......... Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ .......... Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ .......... Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ .......... Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ .......... Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ .......... Mrs. Roby..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ .......... Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ .......... Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Vote Total:......... 59 02 0 ........ ........ .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED The committee has taken steps to make available the analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as soon as possible. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT A. BRADY I would like to state for the record my opposition to an amendment that was offered during the committee's consideration of H.R. 1960, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The amendment, number 175r2, would delay the release of FY 2014 funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. I initially voted in favor of this amendment because I am supportive of the intent to ensure accountability for this program. However, upon further review of the impacts that additional funding delays would have on the program, I believe that this amendment would actually increase costs, damage the supplier base, and risk over 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. I oppose this amendment and am pleased that it failed by a significant margin. Robert A. Brady. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR. I congratulate the Chairman for this 52nd National Defense Authorization mark and thank him for including many good provisions in the bill. I wish, however, to outline concerns about certain provisions which I believe undermine national security. The bill blocks New START Treaty implementation, potentially causing potential additional cost and delays, and complicating implementation of this US binding-commitment to make prudent nuclear weapons reductions. This measure also sends a dangerous signal to Russia as Russia implements its commitments under the Treaty. The bill further prevents further nuclear weapons reductions below New START levels, setting a dangerous precedent in blocking progress that would reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and that would strengthen strategic stability. The bill also wastes funds providing nearly $500 million increase above the President's budget request for nuclear weapons sustainment, for missile defense interceptors and for an additional Ground-based Midcourse Defense site, funds that the administration likely cannot execute and did not request. Forcing the Administration to embark on a $4 billion construction project for a missile defense site before the system is technically reliable, proven and cost-effective is ill-advised, particularly in an era of sequestration and higher security priorities to address the most urgent threats. In addition, the bill fences funds for important nuclear non- proliferation efforts that reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. I am also concerned about provisions that may weaken oversight of health, safety and security at the National Nuclear Security Administration nuclear weapons complex. As we maintain a safe, secure and reliable arsenal, we must maintain high standards for the safety and health of workers and the public. These measures waste scarce taxpayers dollars in the midst of sequestration challenges and do not increase our national security. Regarding recorded vote number 1 on amendment number 175r2 to H.R. 1960, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, I would like to state for the record that I oppose the amendment despite my yes vote, and I intend to vote no should the amendment come before the full House. The amendment would preclude the expenditure of any FY 14 funds for Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps F-35 aircraft and engine procurement until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense has certified certain benchmarks are met. While I respect and sympathize with the good government goals of the amendment, I believe that this amendment would lead to at least a one year delay in production of the F-35, causing potentially tens of thousands of layoffs across the national industrial base, including in my home state of Georgia. It could also increase F-35 unit costs at a time when unit costs have come down over 50%. The amendment may also cause international partners and customers to cancel procurement plans, putting the entire program at risk. I voted yes out of concerns over the cost of the program, particularly given the fiscal climate we are in. However, upon further reflection, I am now convinced that a no vote is in the best interest of our national defense and workforce. This program is already at an advanced stage, with 96 percent of the F-35's software already coded, and 88 percent of the software currently in flight and lab testing. The underlying bill satisfies my concerns about procurement costs through the creation of an Independent team to review the software development program and report back to the Committee. The bottom line is that this amendment would significantly delay the program, cause damage to the aerospace industrial base and prevent 5th Generation Stealth capability from reaching the warfighter when needed. The F-35 program is a good program that, like all programs, requires careful Congressional oversight. I am satisfied that the underlying bill provides an appropriate level of oversight and that the amendment would have harmful consequences for a program that I do support. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JACKIE SPEIER I strongly support the committee's inclusion of our amendment to strengthen whistleblower protections for victims of sexual assault and whistleblowers, but believe that these provisions would be further strengthened by the restoration of language to protect witnesses who cooperate with Inspector General investigations and guaranteed administrative due process for corrections of the records of whistleblowers that have been retaliated against. The Judiciary Committee objected on jurisdictional grounds to a provision that would have ensured that witnesses and others who cooperate with an IG investigation are protected from retaliation. As Congress looks to change the culture and to prevent sexual assaults and other waste, fraud, and abuse in the military, all service members need to know that they have protections for providing information to stem abuses. The protections need to apply to individuals who first report the information. And, it is critically important that similar protections apply to those who witnessed the event or the waste, and are willing to cooperate and provide a statement in a command or IG investigation. Just last year, Congress unanimously passed amendments to the government employee whistleblower protection act. Those amendments ensured that all witnesses have the same protections for disclosing waste, fraud, and abuse in the course of an investigation, as do whistleblowers who first disclose this information. Every other whistleblower law in the U.S. Code protects supporting witnesses for those who challenge misconduct or file a retaliation claim. The reason is fundamental. Whistleblower rights would be illusory unless it is safe to bear witness in their defense. There is no basis for withholding the same protections for members of the military who may be called upon to provide open and honest testimony. The Judiciary Committee's concerns about this provision were based on an overly-broad reading of the provision. The Judiciary Committee expressed concerns that the protections could apply to private sector investigations of misconduct. However, the amendment clearly limits the protections to whistleblower disclosures under this provision of title 10, and related investigations. I hope we can include this critical provision and address the Judiciary's committee's concerns in the final version of the legislation. The Judiciary Committee also expressed concerns that the three year statute of limitations to file a case could cause confusion with review by the Secretary in section 1552. I believe that for this concern to be valid there would have to be a landmark change in how statutes of limitation are applied. It is long-established law that, unless specified otherwise, a statute of limitations only applies to the specific provision for which it is attached. It simply is irrelevant for other due process stages. Any realistic concern easily can be fixed with a technical edit that the statute of limitations controls only the particular subsection or provision to which it is attached. Since 1988, corrections boards have routinely denied hearing requests. The right to a guaranteed due process day in administrative court is the foundation for meaningful reform. A continued Defense Department and Service Inspector General enforcement monopoly is unacceptable. Since 1988, every federal whistleblower law has included the right to administrative due process for either party after an initial, informal investigation. The Government Accountability Office has systematically condemned their track record of enforcement of Military Whistleblower Protections, finding that investigative and corrective action processes are so disconnected that only 19 percent of those with substantiated claims apply for relief. The Defense Inspector General has also criticized its own processes, disagreeing with the conclusions of its reprisal unit to dismiss reprisal cases more than half of the time. Without mandatory due process, this provision will be insufficient to create meaningful deterrence against retaliation. Jackie Speier, Member of Congress. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JACKIE WALORSKI I greatly appreciate the efforts made by Chairman McKeon to address the disturbing prevalence of sexual violence in the military. This epidemic of sexual assault erodes the foundations of trust and camaraderie upon which our proud military tradition was firmly built. A recent report from the Pentagon is alarming. It confirms 3,604 victims of sexual assault last year--that is 3,604 victims too many. Additionally, the report found 62 percent of those who reported unwanted sexual contact felt they experienced some sort of retaliation. This is simply unacceptable. Troops who have sacrificed so much for the cause of liberty should not be subject to reprisal from their chain of command after having just been subject to the emotional and physical pain of a sexual crime. To address the issue of underreporting and create an environment where victims feel comfortable reporting sexual violence, I authored a provision aimed at strengthening existing victim protections. The provision specifically includes reports of sexual assault as a form of communication under whistleblower protections. This change ensures victims can not face reprisal for reporting acts of sexual assault. I was glad to be a part of this process and to work with a number of my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to craft serious and prudent reforms. I commend Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and the staff of the House Armed Services Committee for their diligent work to produce this version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and for making efforts to combat sexual assault in the military a cornerstone of the bill. H.R. 1960 represents sound policy and was crafted in an open process befitting of this institution. I look forward to continuing to work with this Committee on this issue, and am hopeful the House and Senate can work together to move closer to making these provisions law. Jackie Walorski. DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARAMENDI While I appreciated working with my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee in preparing the committee version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2014, there are a number of improvements that need to be made to the bill before it is something I could feel proud of voting in favor of. The bill significantly expands our already excessive nuclear arsenal and includes wasteful spending on projects such as the over-budget MOX facilities at the Savannah River site and an extra $250 million for an East Coast Missile Defense Site--funds the DOD has specifically said it does not need. A logical next step to modernizing our strategic weapons capabilities would be to update outdated comprehensive assessments of our threats and capabilities. Unfortunately, the Committee rejected such a proposal. The bill also provides more than $80 billion in new funding for the war in Afghanistan, exceeding what the administration requested and almost reaching last year's funding levels, despite the fact that U.S. troop levels will drop by 40 percent from last year to this. Included in this is $2.6 billion for new aircraft and military equipment for the Afghanistan National Security Force, despite their questionable capacity to operate or maintain these systems. Finally, the current version of the NDAA fails to ensure that the basic civil liberties of Americans, enshrined in our Constitution, are protected by barring indefinite detention, and it prevents the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, undermining America's moral authority throughout the world. While the aforementioned concerns prevented me from voting Aye, there are numerous provisions in the bill I strongly support. Prominently among these are a 1.8 percent pay increase for our troops, positive steps made toward reforming the way the military handles sexual assault, and a requirement of a minimum of 180 days notification for deployment for reservists. I am confident that through the Floor amendment and conference processes we can find ways to address these shortcomings and shape the current draft legislation into a bill that is consistent with American values and that moves us beyond both the Cold War and the wars of the last decade. As the representative for service members at Travis Air Force Base, in Fairfield, California, which carries out a mobility mission, and Beale Air Force Base near Marysville, which conducts an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance mission, I will continue to advocate for investing in the technologies and military capabilities that are effective against 21st century threats. Sincerely, John Garamendi, Member of Congress.