[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.

                                  
