[House Report 113-446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress  }                                       {   Report
                       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 2d Session     }                                       {   113-446
_______________________________________________________________________

                       HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 4435

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     

  May 13, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed










113th Congress   }                                        {    Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                        {    113-446
_______________________________________________________________________

                       HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 4435

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     

  May 13, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                 _________

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

87-824                    WASHINGTON : 2014














                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                    One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

            HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida                 ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
ROB BISHOP, Utah                     RICK LARSEN, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia              Georgia
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana              JACKIE SPEIER, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               RON BARBER, Arizona
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada               DEREK KILMER, Washington
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey               JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama                   WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida           PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota         MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
PAUL COOK, California                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama

                  Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director



















                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Purpose of the Legislation.......................................     1
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................     2
Hearings.........................................................     9
Committee Position...............................................     9
Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     9
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     9
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill..............     9
Budget Authority Implication.....................................    10

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.................    11

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    11
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    11
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    11
      Overview...................................................    11
      Items of Special Interest..................................    11
        Armed aerial scout strategy..............................    11
        Army Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 
          aircraft...............................................    12
        Army Signals Intelligence modernization..................    12
        Divestiture of rotorcraft through Army's Aviation 
          Restructure Initiative.................................    12
        Improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications..................    13
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    13
      Overview...................................................    13
    Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.....    13
      Overview...................................................    13
      Items of Special Interest..................................    14
        Combat vehicle industrial base management................    14
          Abrams tank upgrades...................................    15
          Hercules recovery vehicle..............................    16
          Stryker combat vehicle modifications...................    16
        M9 upgrades..............................................    17
        Transmission industrial base.............................    17
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army..............................    18
      Overview...................................................    18
      Items of Special Interest..................................    18
        Munitions industrial base management.....................    18
        M982 Excalibur program...................................    19
        Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing 
          Support initiative.....................................    19
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    20
      Overview...................................................    20
      Items of Special Interest..................................    20
        Army ultra-light reconnaissance robot programs...........    20
        Body armor industrial base risk mitigation...............    21
        Tactical generator recapitalization......................    22
        Family of heavy tactical vehicles........................    22
        Family of medium tactical vehicles.......................    22
        Military combat eye protection program...................    23
        Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles.................    24
        Personal dosimetry for protection in Chemical Biological 
          Radiological Nuclear and Explosive environments........    24
        Replacement of Enhanced Position Location Reporting 
          system.................................................    25
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    26
      Overview...................................................    26
      Items of Special Interest..................................    26
        EA-18G Stretch...........................................    26
        H-1 engine program upgrade...............................    26
        MQ-8 Fire Scout..........................................    27
        MV-22 carrier onboard delivery...........................    27
        UH-1 Mobile Aircrew Restraint System retrofits...........    27
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    28
      Overview...................................................    28
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.............    28
      Overview...................................................    28
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    28
      Overview...................................................    28
      Items of Special Interest..................................    28
        Integrated communication systems.........................    28
        Joint High Speed Vessel..................................    29
        Littoral Combat Ship.....................................    29
        Mobile Landing Platform Afloat Forward Staging Base......    30
        Moored Training Ship.....................................    30
        National Defense Sealift Fund............................    30
        Shipbuilding warranties and guarantees...................    31
        Surface ship test platform...............................    31
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    32
      Overview...................................................    32
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    32
      Overview...................................................    32
      Items of Special Interest..................................    32
        Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 System.....................    32
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................    32
      Overview...................................................    32
      Items of Special Interest..................................    33
        Air National Guard MQ-1/MQ-9 ground-based sense and avoid 
          systems................................................    33
        Battlefield Airborne Communications Node program.........    33
        C-130H Avionics Modernization Program and propulsion 
          system upgrades........................................    33
        F-16 block 40/50 mission training centers................    35
        F-16 modernization.......................................    35
        High-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and 
          reconnaissance.........................................    36
        KC-10 Aerial Refueling Aircraft Force Structure..........    37
        KC-46 Aerial Refueling Aircraft program..................    38
        Spare engine requirements and inventory for F-15E and F-
          16 aircraft............................................    39
    Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.........................    39
      Overview...................................................    39
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................    39
      Overview...................................................    39
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................    39
      Overview...................................................    39
      Items of Special Interest..................................    40
        Air Force explosive ordnance disposal unmanned systems 
          repairs and upgrades...................................    40
        Aircraft tug vehicles....................................    40
        Beyond line of sight command and control for 
          intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.    40
        Emergency Airfield Lighting System.......................    41
        Joint threat emitter procurement.........................    41
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................    41
      Overview...................................................    41
      Items of Special Interest..................................    42
        Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and U.S.-
          based coproduction.....................................    42
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................    43
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    43
      Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations...............    43
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................    43
      Section 111--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Airborne Reconnaissance Low Aircraft.....................    43
      Section 112--Plan on Modernization of UH-60A Aircraft of 
        Army National Guard......................................    44
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................    44
      Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tomahawk 
        Block IV Missiles........................................    44
      Section 122--Construction of San Antonio Class Amphibious 
        Ship.....................................................    44
      Section 123--Additional Oversight Requirements for the 
        Undersea Mobility Acquisition Program of the United 
        States Special Operations Command........................    44
      Section 124--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Moored 
        Training Ship Program....................................    44
      Section 125--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Mission Modules for Littoral Combat Ship.................    44
      Section 126--Extension of Limitation on Availability of 
        Funds for Littoral Combat Ship...........................    45
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................    45
      Section 131--Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of 
        Avionics Modernization Program for C-130 Aircraft........    45
      Section 132--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for 
        Retirement of A-10 Aircraft..............................    45
      Section 133--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Retirement of U-2 Aircraft...............................    46
      Section 134--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Divestment or Transfer of KC-10 Aircraft.................    46
      Section 135--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Divestment of E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System 
        Aircraft.................................................    46
    Subtitle E--Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters....    46
      Section 141--Comptroller General Report on F-35 Aircraft 
        Acquisition Program......................................    46
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............    47
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    47
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............    47
      Overview...................................................    47
      Items of Special Interest..................................    47
        Active protective system.................................    47
        Applied Communication Information Network................    47
        Combat feeding research and development..................    48
        Combat identification for dismounted users...............    48
        Dual mode tactical missiles..............................    49
        Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology...................    49
        Expeditionary communications.............................    50
        Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment............    50
        High explosive guided mortar program.....................    50
        High Performance Computing Modernization program.........    51
        Improved Turbine Engine Program..........................    52
        Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program......................    52
        Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.............................    53
        Lightweight segmented tactical ladders...................    53
        Non-invasive medical diagnostic tools....................    54
        Operational testing of High Energy Laser Mobile 
          Demonstrator...........................................    54
        Rotorcraft hostile fire protection.......................    54
        Small Airborne Networking Radio program..................    55
        Soldier protection system and weight reduction for 
          personnel protection equipment.........................    55
        Stryker Vehicle Survivability Upgrades...................    56
        Transparent armor technology development.................    56
        UH-72 Helicopter health monitoring system................    57
        Universal tactical controller for unmanned systems.......    57
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............    58
      Overview...................................................    58
      Items of Special Interest..................................    58
        Amphibious Combat Vehicle increment 1.1 program..........    58
        Briefing on the Navy Laser Weapon System.................    59
        Marine Corps Rifle Mounted Optical Systems and 
          Modifications..........................................    59
        MQ-4C Triton program.....................................    60
        Navy deployment of the laser weapon system...............    60
        Navy reimbursable work for other Federal agencies........    61
        Next Generation Land Attack and Offensive Anti-Surface 
          Warfare weapon development.............................    61
        Oceanographic research...................................    63
        Precision extended range munition program................    64
        Submarine detection research.............................    64
        University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships    65
        Unmanned aerial system electronic attack demonstration...    65
        Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike Program    65
        Virginia Payload Module program..........................    67
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force.......    67
      Overview...................................................    67
      Items of Special Interest..................................    67
        Additive manufacturing...................................    67
        Air Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities 
          talon hate program.....................................    68
        Air Force weapons simulation framework...................    68
        B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement program.................    69
        Common airborne sense and avoid..........................    69
        Cyber operations program elements........................    69
        E-8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System 
          replacement program....................................    70
        EC-130 Compass Call aircraft replacement program.........    71
        Ejection seat safety and reliability improvement program.    71
        F-35 25mm cannon ammunition..............................    72
        F-35 aircraft program....................................    72
        F-35 block 4 program.....................................    73
        Ground Moving Target Indicator Way Ahead.................    74
        Metals Affordability Initiative..........................    75
        Nuclear command and control for enduring tanker aircraft.    75
        Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program...........    75
        Wide area surveillance...................................    76
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide....    77
      Overview...................................................    77
      Items of Special Interest..................................    77
        Analysis of Alternatives for Undersea Clandestine 
          Insertion of Special Operations Forces.................    77
        Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Segment..............    77
        Bioforensic threat detection.............................    78
        Biosecurity in Department of Defense research facilities.    78
        Capabilities to experimentally study militarily-relevant 
          High Reynolds Numbers..................................    79
        Chemical Biological Defense Program threat priorities....    79
        Combat helmet test and evaluation protocols..............    80
        Combatant commands and science and technology Communities 
          of Interest............................................    80
        Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office........    81
        Conference restrictions for scientists and engineers.....    81
        Coordination of efforts for advanced manufacturing of 
          medical countermeasures................................    82
        Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Spectrum 
          Challenge..............................................    83
        Development of antibiotics against biothreats............    83
        Development of innovative detection and threat 
          identification technologies............................    84
        Electronic warfare roadmap...............................    84
        Expeditionary airfield technology........................    85
        Field-programmable gate arrays for defense...............    85
        Future vertical lift.....................................    86
        Guidance on utilizing non-profit research institutes.....    86
        Health of the research and development enterprise........    87
        High-efficiency, conventional missile propulsion.........    87
        Hypersonics research.....................................    88
        Internet access on Kwajalein Atoll.......................    88
        Leveraging commercial technology for directed energy.....    89
        Military service coordination and transition efforts for 
          the chemical biological defense program................    89
        Minority science and technology programs.................    90
        Multi-aircraft control of unmanned aerial vehicles.......    91
        Multi-mission airborne radio frequency systems for 
          unmanned aerial systems................................    91
        National Defense Education Program.......................    91
        Neuroplasticity research partnerships....................    92
        Optics and photonics for defense applications............    92
        Prosthesis research......................................    93
        Redesigned Kill Vehicle for Homeland Missile Defense.....    94
        Space weather events research............................    94
        Special Operations developmental efforts for Tactical 
          Assault Light Operator Suit............................    95
        Special Operations Forces Survival, Support, and 
          Equipment Systems Program Management Office............    96
        Technologies to improve spectrum efficiency..............    96
        Three-dimensional integrated circuits....................    97
        U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation..................    97
        Vaccine research for equine encephalitis.................    98
        Validation of near-term counter-electronics capability...    98
        Vapor compression cooling systems technology.............    99
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   100
      Overview...................................................   100
      Items of Special Interest..................................   100
        Information Assurance and Interoperability Program.......   100
        Program reporting and metrics on penetration testing.....   100
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   101
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   101
      Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............   101
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
        Limitations..............................................   101
      Section 211--Preliminary Design Review of Presidential 
        Aircraft Recapitalization Program........................   101
      Section 212--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Program....................   101
      Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and 
        Strike System............................................   102
      Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Airborne Reconnaissance Systems..........................   102
      Section 215--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Weather Satellite Follow-On System.......................   102
      Section 216--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Space-
        Based Infrared Systems Space Data Exploitation...........   103
      Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Hosted 
        Payload and Wide Field of View Testbed of the Space-Based 
        Infrared Systems.........................................   103
      Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Protected Tactical Demonstration and Protected Military 
        Satellite Communications Testbed of the Advanced 
        Extremely High Frequency Program.........................   103
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   104
      Section 221--Revision to the Service Requirement under the 
        Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation 
        Defense Education Program................................   104
      Section 222--Revision of Requirement for Acquisition 
        Programs to Maintain Defense Research Facility Records...   104
      Section 223--Modification to Cost-sharing Requirement for 
        Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection Features 
        during Research and Development of Certain Defense 
        Systems..................................................   104
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................   104
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   104
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   106
    Budget Request Adjustments...................................   106
      Base Realignment and Closure 2018..........................   106
      Corrosion Prevention.......................................   106
      Marine Corps Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces.   107
      Support for International Sporting Competitions............   107
    Energy Issues................................................   108
      Comptroller General Utilities Disruption and Energy 
        Security Mandate.........................................   108
      Marine Hydrokinetic Technology.............................   109
      Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Energy Efficiencies...............   109
    Logistics and Sustainment Issues.............................   109
      Army Workload and Performance System.......................   109
      Auditability of Data Used to Measure Depot Maintenance 
        Workload Distribution....................................   110
      Comptroller General Review of Forward Deployed Naval Forces 
        and Associated Sustainment Issues........................   111
      Department of Defense Inspector General Determination of 
        Fair and Reasonable Cost of Spare Parts..................   112
      Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport 
        Hazardous Materials for the Department of Defense........   113
      F117 Engine Sustainment Strategy...........................   113
      Manufacturing Infrastructure Investment....................   114
      Public-Private Partnerships at Centers of Industrial and 
        Technical Excellence.....................................   115
      Report on the Department of Defense's Transportation of 
        Hazardous Materials......................................   115
      Report on the Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who 
        Transport Security-Sensitive Materials for the Department 
        of Defense...............................................   116
      Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul....................   117
      Sustainment of Deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense   117
    Readiness Issues.............................................   118
      Adequacy of Airlift and Refueling Capabilities in the 
        Western Pacific..........................................   118
      Advanced Situational Awareness Training Assessment.........   118
      Army Aviation Range Safety Improvements....................   119
      Army Aviation Training.....................................   119
      Commercially Augmented Tactical Airborne Training..........   119
      Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System.............   120
      Comptroller General Report on Readiness Metrics............   120
    Other Matters................................................   121
      Arctic Center of Excellence................................   121
      Army Combat Shirt Fielding Strategy........................   122
      Briefing on Invasive Species Management....................   122
      Cold-Weather Protective Clothing...........................   123
      Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense's 
        Arctic Capabilities......................................   123
      Comptroller General Review of Process for the Disposition 
        of Excess Defense Articles...............................   124
      Office of Net Assessment...................................   125
      Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers....   126
      Report on Emerging Technologies for Flame Resistant 
        Uniforms.................................................   126
      Training, Travel, and Conference Restrictions..............   127
      U.S. Special Operations Command National Capital Region 
        Office...................................................   127
      United States Special Operations Command Preservation of 
        the Force and Families Program...........................   128
      United States Special Operations Command Proposed 
        Sponsorship of U.S. Naval Ship Sumner....................   129
      Waste Disposal Technologies in Contingency Operations......   130
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   131
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   131
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   131
    Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions..............   131
      Section 311--Elimination of Fiscal Year Limitation on 
        Prohibition of Payment of Fines and Penalties from the 
        Environmental Restoration Account, Defense...............   131
      Section 312--Biannual Certification by Commanders of the 
        Combatant Commands Relating to the Prohibition on the 
        Disposal of Waste in Open-Air Burn Pits..................   131
      Section 313--Exclusions from Definition of ``Chemical 
        Substance'' Under Toxic Substances Control Act and Report 
        on Lead Ammunition.......................................   131
      Section 314--Exemption of Department of Defense from 
        Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement.................   132
      Section 315--Congressional Notice of Bulk Purchase of 
        Alternative Fuels for Operational Use....................   132
      Section 316--Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels.........   132
      Section 317--Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or 
        Construction of Biofuels Refineries......................   132
    Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................   132
      Section 321--Additional Requirement for Strategic Policy on 
        Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment.................   132
      Section 322--Comptroller General Reports on Department of 
        Defense Prepositioning Strategic Policy and Plan for 
        Prepositioned Stocks.....................................   132
      Section 323--Pilot Program on Provision of Logistic Support 
        for the Conveyance of Excess Defense Articles to Allied 
        Forces...................................................   132
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................   133
      Section 331--Repeal of Annual Report on Department of 
        Defense Operation and Financial Support for Military 
        Museums..................................................   133
      Section 332--Report on Enduring Requirements and Activities 
        Currently Funded Through Amounts Authorized to Be 
        Appropriated for Overseas Contingency Operations.........   133
      Section 333--Army Assessment of the Regionally Aligned 
        Force....................................................   133
      Section 334--Report on Impacts of Funding Reductions on 
        Military Readiness.......................................   134
    Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority..........   134
      Section 341--Limitation on Authority to Enter into a 
        Contract for the Sustainment, Maintenance, Repair, or 
        Overhaul of the F117 Engine..............................   134
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   134
      Section 351--Clarification of Authority Relating to 
        Provision of Installation-Support Services through 
        Intergovernmental Support Agreements.....................   134
      Section 352--Sense of Congress on Access to Training Ranges 
        within United States Pacific Command Area of 
        Responsibility...........................................   135
      Section 353--Management of Conventional Ammunition 
        Inventory................................................   135
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   135
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   135
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   136
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   136
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   136
      Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End 
        Strength Minimum Levels..................................   136
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   136
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   136
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 
        Support of the Reserves..................................   137
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual 
        Status)..................................................   137
      Section 414--Fiscal Year 2015 Limitation on Number of Non-
        Dual Status Technicians..................................   137
      Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 
        To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support.............   138
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   138
      Section 421--Military Personnel............................   138
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   138
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   138
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   139
      Analysis for Change in Basic Allowance for Housing.........   139
      Arlington National Cemetery Advisory Committee.............   140
      Briefing on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.........   140
      Comptroller General Review of Army National Guard 
        Recruiting Practices.....................................   140
      Comptroller General Review of Army Reserve and Army 
        National Guard Non-Availability for Mobilization.........   141
      Comptroller General Review Regarding Department of Defense 
        and Military Departments Professionalism and Ethics 
        Programs.................................................   142
      Continuum of Service and Reserve Component Duty Statuses...   142
      Department of Defense Hair and Grooming Standards..........   143
      Diversity of the Armed Forces..............................   143
      Medal of Honor Process.....................................   143
      Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System Firefighting Mission.   144
      Recognizing Military Chaplains.............................   144
      Report on Need for Uniform Code of Military Justice 
        Punitive Article.........................................   145
      Report on the Sufficiency of Department of Defense Chaplain 
        Guidance in Response to the Independent Review Related to 
        Fort Hood................................................   145
      Support to Youth and Charitable Organizations..............   145
      Transition Assistance Program..............................   145
      U.S. Air Force Academy Reductions..........................   146
      U.S. Special Operations Command Education Initiatives......   146
      Unmanned Aerial System Transition of Personnel.............   147
      Use of Reserve Officers Training Corps Scholarships to 
        Increase Cyber Security Expertise........................   148
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   148
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally...............   148
      Section 501--Authority to Limit Consideration for Early 
        Retirement by Selective Retirement Boards to Particular 
        Warrant Officer Year Groups and Specialties..............   148
      Section 502--Relief from Limits on the Percentage of 
        Officers Who May Be Recommended for Discharge during a 
        Fiscal Year Using Enhanced Authority for Selective Early 
        Discharges...............................................   148
      Section 503--Repeal of Requirement for Submission to 
        Congress of Annual Reports on Joint Officer Management 
        and Promotion Policy Objectives for Joint Officers.......   149
      Section 504--Options for Phase II of Joint Professional 
        Military Education.......................................   149
      Section 505--Limitation on Number of Enlisted Aides 
        Authorized for Officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
        Marine Corps.............................................   149
      Section 506--Required Consideration of Certain Elements of 
        Command Climate in Performance Appraisals of Commanding 
        Officers.................................................   149
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Personnel Management...........   149
      Section 511--Retention on the Reserve Active-Status List 
        Following Nonselection for Promotion of Certain Health 
        Professions Officers and First Lieutenants and 
        Lieutenants (Junior Grade) Pursuing Baccalaureate Degrees   149
      Section 512--Chief of the National Guard Bureau Role in 
        Assignment of Directors and Deputy Directors of the Army 
        and Air National Guards..................................   150
      Section 513--National Guard Civil and Defense Support 
        Activities and Related Matters...........................   150
    Subtitle C--General Service Authorities......................   150
      Section 521--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military 
        Personnel Decisions Relating to Correction of Military 
        Records..................................................   150
      Section 522--Additional Required Elements of Transition 
        Assistance Program.......................................   150
      Section 523--Extension of Authority to Conduct Career 
        Flexibility Programs.....................................   151
      Section 524--Provision of Information to Members of the 
        Armed Forces on Privacy Rights Relating to Receipt of 
        Mental Health Services...................................   151
      Section 525--Protection of the Religious Freedom of 
        Military Chaplains to Close a Prayer Outside of a 
        Religious Service According to the Traditions, 
        Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing 
        Faith Group..............................................   151
      Section 526--Department of Defense Senior Advisor on 
        Professionalism..........................................   151
      Section 527--Removal of Artificial Barriers to the Service 
        of Women in the Armed Forces.............................   151
    Subtitle D--Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and 
        Domestic Violence Prevention and Response................   152
      Section 531--Improved Department of Defense Information 
        Reporting and Collection of Domestic Violence Incidents 
        Involving Members of the Armed Forces....................   152
      Section 532--Additional Duty for Judicial Proceedings Panel 
        Regarding Use of Mental Health Records by Defense during 
        Preliminary Hearing and Court-Martial Proceedings........   152
      Section 533--Applicability of Sexual Assault Prevention and 
        Response and Related Military Justice Enhancements to 
        Military Service Academies...............................   152
      Section 534--Consultation with Victims of Sexual Assault 
        Regarding Victims' Preference for Prosecution of Offense 
        by Court-Martial or Civilian Court.......................   152
      Section 535--Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Related 
        to Protections Afforded by Certain Military Rules of 
        Evidence.................................................   153
      Section 536--Minimum Confinement Period Required for 
        Conviction of Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by 
        Members of the Armed Forces..............................   153
      Section 537--Modification of Military Rules of Evidence 
        Relating to Admissibility of General Military Character 
        Toward Probability of Innocence..........................   153
      Section 538--Confidential Review of Characterization of 
        Terms of Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces Who Are 
        Victims of Sexual Offenses...............................   153
      Section 539--Consistent Application of Rules of Privilege 
        Afforded Under the Military Rules of Evidence............   153
    Subtitle E--Military Family Readiness........................   153
      Section 545--Earlier Determination of Dependent Status with 
        Respect to Transitional Compensation for Dependents of 
        Members Separated for Dependent Abuse....................   153
      Section 546--Improved Consistency in Data Collection and 
        Reporting in Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Efforts.....   154
      Section 547--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for 
        Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces..............   154
    Subtitle F--Education and Training Opportunities.............   154
      Section 551--Authorized Duration of Foreign and Cultural 
        Exchange Activities at Military Service Academies........   154
      Section 552--Pilot Program to Assist Members of the Armed 
        Forces in Obtaining Post-Service Employment..............   154
    Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education....................   155
      Section 561--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local 
        Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members 
        of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian 
        Employees................................................   155
      Section 562--Authority to Employ Non-United States Citizens 
        as Teachers in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents' 
        School System............................................   155
      Section 563--Expansion of Functions of the Advisory Council 
        on Dependents' Education to Include Domestic Dependent 
        Elementary and Secondary Schools.........................   155
      Section 564--Support for Efforts to Improve Academic 
        Achievement and Transition of Military Dependent Students   155
      Section 565--Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act 
        of 2012..................................................   155
    Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards...........................   156
      Section 571--Medals for Members of the Armed Forces and 
        Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense Who Were 
        Killed or Wounded in an Attack Inspired or Motivated by a 
        Foreign Terrorist Organization...........................   156
      Section 572--Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge.   156
      Section 573--Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions 
        Pertaining to Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps 
        Sergeant Rafael Peralta..................................   156
    Subtitle I--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements.............   156
      Section 581--Secretary of Defense Review and Report on 
        Prevention of Suicide Among Members of United States 
        Special Operations Forces................................   156
      Section 582--Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
        Review of Separation of Members of the Armed Forces Who 
        Made Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault..............   157
      Section 583--Comptroller General Report Regarding 
        Management of Personnel Records of Members of the 
        National Guard...........................................   157
      Section 584--Study on Gender Integration in Defense 
        Operation Planning and Execution.........................   157
      Section 585--Deadline for Submission of Report Containing 
        Results of Review of Office of Diversity Management and 
        Equal Opportunity Role in Sexual Harassment Cases........   157
    Subtitle J--Other Matters....................................   158
      Section 591--Inspection of Outpatient Residential 
        Facilities Occupied by Recovering Service Members........   158
      Section 592--Working Group on Integrated Disability 
        Evaluation System........................................   158
      Section 593--Sense of Congress Regarding Fulfilling Promise 
        to Leave No Member of the Armed Forces Unaccounted in 
        Afghanistan..............................................   158
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   158
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   158
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   159
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   159
      Section 601--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary 
        Increase in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under 
        Certain Circumstances....................................   159
      Section 602--No Fiscal Year 2015 Increase in Basic Pay for 
        General and Flag Officers................................   159
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   159
      Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces...............   159
      Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals....   160
      Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus 
        Authorities for Nuclear Officers.........................   160
      Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and 
        Bonus Authorities........................................   160
      Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays.......   160
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation........................   161
      Section 621--Authority to Enter into Contracts for the 
        Provision of Relocation Services.........................   161
    Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 
        Instrumentality Benefits and Operations..................   161
      Section 631--Authority of Nonappropriated Fund 
        Instrumentalities to Enter into Contracts with Other 
        Federal Agencies and Instrumentalities to Provide and 
        Obtain Certain Goods and Services........................   161
      Section 632--Review of Management, Food, and Pricing 
        Options for Defense Commissary System....................   161
      Section 633--Restriction on Implementing Any Department of 
        Defense Policy to Limit, Restrict, or Ban the Sale of 
        Certain Items on Military Installations..................   162
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   162
      Section 641--Anonymous Survey of Members of the Armed 
        Forces Regarding Their Preferences for Military Pay and 
        Benefits.................................................   162
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   162
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   162
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   163
      Air Force Critical Care Training...........................   163
      Canine Therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and 
        Traumatic Brain Injury...................................   163
      Collaboration on Trauma Research...........................   163
      Deployment Health for Women................................   164
      Early Autism Diagnosis and Assistance for Families.........   165
      Healthy Base Initiative....................................   165
      Infectious Disease Surveillance Testing....................   165
      Integrated Scheduling System...............................   165
      Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs 
        Healthcare in Colorado Springs...........................   166
      Joint Medical Kits.........................................   166
      Military and Academic Research Partnership.................   167
      Military Contributions to Breast Cancer Research...........   167
      Military Health Care Team Model............................   167
      Military Innovations in Suicide Research...................   168
      Report on Implementation Plans for the Defense Health 
        Agency...................................................   168
      Review of Defense Health Agency Progress...................   169
      Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rules for Sole Community 
        Hospitals................................................   169
      Sleep Health...............................................   170
      Surgical Critical Care Institute...........................   170
      US Family Health Plans.....................................   170
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   171
    Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits...........   171
      Section 701--Mental Health Assessments for Members of the 
        Armed Forces.............................................   171
      Section 702--Clarification of Provision of Food to Former 
        Members and Dependents Not Receiving Inpatient Care in 
        Military Medical Treatment Facilities....................   171
    Subtitle B--Health Care Administration.......................   171
      Section 711--Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the 
        Military Departments and Non-Military Health Care 
        Entities.................................................   171
      Section 712--Surveys on Continued Viability of TRICARE 
        Standard and TRICARE Extra...............................   171
      Section 713--Limitation on Transfer or Elimination of 
        Graduate Medical Education Billets.......................   171
      Section 714--Review of Military Health System Modernization 
        Study....................................................   172
    Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................   172
      Section 721--Extension of Authority for Joint Department of 
        Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
        Demonstration Fund.......................................   172
      Section 722--Designation and Responsibilities of Senior 
        Medical Advisor for Armed Forces Retirement Home.........   172
      Section 723--Research Regarding Alzheimer's Disease........   172
      Section 724--Acquisition Strategy for Health Care 
        Professional Staffing Services...........................   173
      Section 725--Pilot Program on Medication Therapy Management 
        Under TRICARE Program....................................   173
      Section 726--Report on Reduction of Prime Service Areas....   173
      Section 727--Comptroller General Report on Transition of 
        Care for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic 
        Brain Injury.............................................   173
      Section 728--Briefing on Hospitals in Arrears in Payments 
        to Department of Defense.................................   173
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
    RELATED MATTERS..............................................   174
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   174
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   175
      Acquisitions Involving Reverse Auctions....................   175
      Briefing on Impact of Foreign Military Sales and Direct 
        Commercial Sales on Industrial Base Sustainment..........   176
      Briefing on the Impact of the Budget Control Act on High 
        Risk Sectors of the Defense Industrial Base..............   176
      Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense 
        Processes for the Acquisition of Services................   177
      Comptroller General Review of Compliance with Limitations 
        on Contract Services Spending............................   178
      Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Trusted 
        Foundry and Supply Chain Risk Management Programs........   179
      Comptroller General Review of Rulemaking Practices of the 
        Department of Defense....................................   179
      Export Controls and the Small Arms Industrial Base.........   180
      Independent Assessment of Department of Defense Cloud 
        Computing Acquisition and Brokerage Policies.............   181
      Industrial Base Risks Associated with Negotiated Standards 
        of Production............................................   181
      Operational Contract Support...............................   182
      Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain Review....................   183
      Regional Commercialization Activities......................   184
      Use of National Security Waiver to Specialty Metals Clause.   184
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   185
    Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
        Procedures, and Limitations..............................   185
      Section 801--Extension to United States Transportation 
        Command of Authorities Relating to Prohibition on 
        Contracting with the Enemy...............................   185
      Section 802--Extension of Contract Authority for Advanced 
        Component Development or Prototype Units.................   185
      Section 803--Amendment Relating to Authority of the Defense 
        Advanced Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain 
        Prototype Projects.......................................   185
      Section 804--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual 
        Amount Available for Contract Services...................   185
    Subtitle B--Industrial Base Matters..........................   186
      Section 811--Three-Year Extension of and Amendments to Test 
        Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business 
        Subcontracting Plans.....................................   186
      Section 812--Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled 
        Veteran-Owned Small Businesses...........................   187
      Section 813--Plan for Improving Data on Bundled and 
        Consolidated Contracts...................................   187
      Section 814--Authority to Provide Education to Small 
        Businesses on Certain Requirements of Arms Export Control 
        Act......................................................   187
      Section 815--Prohibition on Reverse Auctions for Covered 
        Contracts................................................   188
      Section 816--SBA Surety Bond Guarantee.....................   188
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   188
      Section 821--Certification of Effectiveness for Air Force 
        Information Technology Contracting.......................   188
      Section 822--Airlift Service...............................   188
      Section 823--Compliance with Requirements for Senior 
        Department of Defense Officials Seeking Employment with 
        Defense Contractors......................................   189
      Section 824--Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment..   189
      Section 825--Prohibition on Funds for Contracts Violating 
        Executive Order No. 11246................................   189
      Section 826--Requirement for Policies and Standard 
        Checklist in Procurement of Services.....................   189
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   190
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   190
      Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense 
        Headquarters Reductions..................................   190
      Comptroller General Review of Operational Test and 
        Evaluation Processes and Activities......................   191
      Department of Defense Unmanned Systems Office..............   192
      Global Response Force......................................   192
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   193
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   193
      Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as 
        the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps..............   193
      Section 902--Additional Responsibility for Director of 
        Operational Test and Evaluation..........................   193
      Section 903--Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
        Installations and Environment............................   193
      Section 904--Requirement for Congressional Briefing before 
        Divesting of Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
        Functions................................................   193
      Section 905--Combatant Command Efficiency Plan.............   194
      Section 906--Requirement for Plan to Reduce Geographic 
        Combatant Commands to Four by Fiscal Year 2020...........   194
      Section 907--Office of Net Assessment......................   194
      Section 908--Amendments Relating to Organization and 
        Management of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.....   195
      Section 909--Periodic Review of Department of Defense 
        Management Headquarters..................................   195
    Subtitle B--Total Force Management...........................   195
      Section 911--Modifications to Biennial Strategic Workforce 
        Plan Relating to Senior Management, Functional, and 
        Technical Workforce of the Department of Defense.........   195
      Section 912--Repeal of Extension of Comptroller General 
        Report on Inventory......................................   195
      Section 913--Assignment of Certain New Requirements Based 
        on Determinations of Cost-Efficiency.....................   196
      Section 914--Prohibition on Conversion of Functions 
        Performed by Civilian or Contractor Personnel to 
        Performance by Military Personnel........................   196
      Section 915--Notification of Compliance with Section 
        Relating to Procurement of Services......................   196
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   196
      Section 921--Extension of Authority to Waive Reimbursement 
        of Costs of Activities for Nongovernmental Personnel at 
        Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security 
        Studies..................................................   196
      Section 923--Authority to Require Employees of the 
        Department of Defense and Members of the Army, Navy, Air 
        Force, and Marine Corps to Occupy Quarters on a Rental 
        Basis while Performing Official Travel...................   196
      Section 924--Single Standard Mileage Reimbursement Rate for 
        Privately Owned Automobiles of Government Employees and 
        Members of the Uniformed Services........................   197
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   197
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   197
    Counter-Drug Activities......................................   197
      Afghanistan Counternarcotics Strategy Post-2014............   197
      National Guard Counterdrug Programs........................   198
      U.S. Southern Command Asset Resourcing.....................   198
    Other Matters................................................   199
      Army Force Structure.......................................   199
      Assessment of Counterfeit Detection Efforts................   200
      Cargo Unmanned Aerial Systems..............................   201
      Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense 
        Antiterrorism and Force Protection Efforts...............   201
      Coordination of Efforts to Track and Counter Weapons of 
        Mass Destruction.........................................   202
      Cross-Service Wargaming Capability.........................   202
      Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action and 
        Conventional Munitions Assistance Program................   203
      Department of Defense Installation Security................   204
      Economic Warfare Policy....................................   204
      Force Structure Assessment.................................   205
      Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account.......................   206
      Information Management Systems for Response Forces.........   207
      Inspector General's Report on Over-Classification of 
        National Security Information............................   207
      Internet Governance........................................   207
      Inventory of Counter Threat Finance Programs and 
        Capabilities.............................................   208
      Military Auxiliary Radio System............................   208
      Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies...........   209
      Personnel Protection Equipment Budget Justification 
        Material.................................................   210
      Phased Modernization of Certain Navy Ships.................   210
      Recognizing the Importance of Professional Military 
        Education Concerning Nuclear Deterrence Operations and 
        Policy...................................................   211
      Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas..........   212
      Report on National Commission on the Structure of the Air 
        Force Recommendations....................................   212
      Review of Military Standard to Protect Systems Against 
        Electromagnetic Pulse....................................   213
      Security Risks Related to Foreign Investment in the United 
        States...................................................   214
      Spectrum Operations Centers................................   215
      Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination..........   216
      Transfer of Coast Guard HC-130H Aircraft to the Air Force 
        for U.S. Forest Service Equipment Modifications..........   216
      U.S. Transportation Command Report on Operational and 
        Tactical Control of All Department of Defense Executive 
        Airlift Aircraft.........................................   217
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   218
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   218
      Section 1001--General Transfer Authority...................   218
      Section 1002--Repeal of Limitation on Inspector General 
        Audits of Certain Financial Statements...................   218
      Section 1003--Authority to Transfer Funds to the National 
        Nuclear Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear 
        Weapons Modernization and Naval Reactors.................   218
      Section 1004--Management of Defense Information Technology 
        Systems..................................................   218
    Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   218
      Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Support Unified 
        Counter-drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia...   218
      Section 1012--Three-Year Extension of Authority of 
        Department of Defense to Provide Additional Support for 
        Counterdrug Activities of Other Governmental Agencies....   219
      Section 1013--Submittal of Biannual Reports on Use of Funds 
        in the Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 
        Defense-wide Account on the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
        of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Foreign Relations of the Senate..........................   219
      Section 1014--National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counter-
        drug Activities..........................................   219
      Section 1015--Sense of Congress on Mexico and Central 
        America..................................................   219
    Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   219
      Section 1021--Definition of Combatant and Support Vessel 
        for Purposes of the Annual Plan and Certification 
        Relating to Budgeting for Construction of Naval Vessels..   219
      Section 1022--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund...........   220
      Section 1023--Elimination of Requirement that a Qualified 
        Aviator or Naval Flight Officer Be in Command of an 
        Inactivated Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier Before 
        Decommissioning..........................................   220
      Section 1024--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds until 
        Commencement of Planning of Refueling and Complex 
        Overhaul of the U.S.S. George Washington.................   220
      Section 1025--Sense of Congress Recognizing the Anniversary 
        of the Sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher....................   220
      Section 1026--Availability of Funds for Retirement or 
        Inactivation of Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock 
        Landing Ships............................................   220
    Subtitle D--Counterterrorism.................................   220
      Section 1031--Extension of Authority to Make Rewards for 
        Combating Terrorism......................................   220
      Section 1032--Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or 
        Modify Facilities in the United States to House Detainees 
        Transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
        Bay, Cuba................................................   221
      Section 1033--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the 
        Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United 
        States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...............   221
    Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   221
      Section 1041--Modification of Department of Defense 
        Authority for Humanitarian Demining Assistance and 
        Stockpiled Conventional Munitions Assistance Programs....   221
      Section 1042--Authority to Accept Voluntary Services of Law 
        Students and Persons Studying to be Paralegals...........   221
      Section 1043--Expansion of Authority for Secretary of 
        Defense to Use the Department of Defense Reimbursement 
        Rate for Transportation Services Provided to Certain Non-
        Department of Defense Entities...........................   221
      Section 1044--Repeal of Authority Relating to Use of 
        Military Installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet 
        Contractors..............................................   222
      Section 1045--Certification and Limitation on Availability 
        of Funds for Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program...   222
      Section 1046--Submittal of Procedures and Reports Relating 
        to Sensitive Military Operations.........................   222
      Section 1047--Limitation on Use of Russian-Flagged Airlift 
        Aircraft to Support the Airlift Movement Requirements of 
        the United States Transportation Command.................   222
      Section 1048--Prohibition on Reduction of Force Structure 
        at Lajes Air Force Base until Completion of Assessments 
        by Secretary of Defense and General Accounting Office....   223
      Section 1049--Limitation on Removal of C-130 Aircraft......   223
      Section 1050--Conditions on Army National Guard and Active 
        Army Force Structure Changes Pending Comptroller General 
        Report...................................................   223
    Subtitle F--Studies and Reports..............................   224
      Section 1061--Protection of Defense Mission-Critical 
        Infrastructure from Electromagnetic Pulse and High-
        Powered Microwave Systems................................   224
      Section 1062--Response of the Department of Defense to 
        Compromises of Classified Information....................   224
      Section 1063--Report and Briefing to Congress on 
        Procurement and Inspection of Armored Commercial 
        Passenger-Carrying Vehicles to Transport Civilian 
        Employees of Department of Defense.......................   224
      Section 1064--Study on Joint Analytic Capability of the 
        Department of Defense....................................   225
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   225
      Section 1071--Technical and Clerical Amendments............   225
      Section 1072--Sale or Donation of Excess Personal Property 
        for Border Security Activities...........................   225
      Section 1073--Revision to Statute of Limitations for 
        Aviation Insurance Claims................................   225
      Section 1074--Pilot Program for the Human Terrain System...   225
      Section 1075--Unmanned Aircraft Systems and National 
        Airspace.................................................   226
      Section 1076--Sense of Congress on the Life and 
        Achievements of Dr. James R. Schlesinger.................   226
      Section 1077--Reform of Quadrennial Defense Review.........   226
      Section 1078--Resubmission of 2014 Quadrennial Defense 
        Review...................................................   227
      Section 1079--Sense of Congress Regarding Counter-
        Improvised Explosive Devices.............................   228
      Section 1080--Enhancing Presence and Capabilities and 
        Readiness Posture of United States Military in Europe....   228
      Section 1081--Determination and Disclosure of 
        Transportation Costs Incurred by the Secretary of Defense 
        for Congressional Trips Outside the United States........   228
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   228
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   228
      Furlough of Employees Compensated Through Working Capital 
        Funds....................................................   228
      Overtime Pay for Department of the Navy Employees 
        Performing Maintenance on the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier 
        Forward Deployed in Japan................................   229
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   229
      Section 1101--One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive 
        Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation 
        on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas...   229
      Section 1102--One-Year Extension of Discretionary Authority 
        to Grant Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to 
        Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone..............   230
      Section 1103--Revision to List of Science and Technology 
        Reinvention Laboratories.................................   230
      Section 1104--Permanent Authority for Experimental 
        Personnel Program for Scientific and Technical Personnel.   230
      Section 1105--Temporary Authorities for Certain Positions 
        at Department of Defense Research and Engineering 
        Facilities...............................................   230
      Section 1106--Judicial Review of Merit Systems Protection 
        Board Decisions Relating to Whistleblowers...............   230
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   231
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   231
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   233
      Additional Reporting on the Transfer of International 
        Traffic in Arms Regulations Controlled Missile Defense 
        Technology to the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration...........................................   233
      Aggression by the Russian Federation.......................   234
      Briefings on Arms Control Inspections and Potential 
        Inconsistencies..........................................   235
      Conflict in Syria..........................................   236
      Department of Defense Arctic Collaboration with 
        International Partners...................................   237
      Foreign Military Sales of U.S. Air and Missile Defense 
        Systems and Interoperability with Friendly and Allied 
        States...................................................   238
      Global Security Contingency Fund...........................   239
      Missile Defense Cooperation with Japan.....................   239
      Missile Defense Cooperation with the Republic of Korea.....   240
      Monitoring of Ongoing Construction Activities in 
        Afghanistan..............................................   240
      National Guard State Partnership Program...................   240
      National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking.......   241
      Non-Lethal Weapons for Contingency Operations..............   241
      North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2014 Summit.............   242
      North Atlantic Treaty Organization Center of Excellence on 
        Deterrence...............................................   243
      Oversight of United States-Russian Federation Missile 
        Defense Cooperation Discussions..........................   244
      Report on Countering Violations of the Intermediate-Range 
        Nuclear Forces Treaty....................................   244
      Report on Financial Management Capacity of Afghan Ministry 
        of Defense and Ministry of Interior......................   246
      Report on Foreign Ballistic Missile Defense Programs.......   247
      Report on Operational Contract Support in U.S. Africa 
        Command..................................................   248
      Report on the Proliferation Activities of Karl Lee and the 
        Support of the Chinese Government........................   249
      Report on U.S. Army Regionally Aligned Brigade in Africa...   249
      Report on U.S. Government Comprehensive Approach to 
        Strengthen Its Strategic Partnership with Djibouti.......   250
      Report on Updated Independent Cost Estimate of the European 
        Phased Adaptive Approach.................................   251
      Republic of China Radar Interoperability...................   252
      Transfers of Excess Defense Articles.......................   252
      United States Security Assistance to the Government of 
        Egypt....................................................   252
      United States Security Policy and Posture in the Middle 
        East and North Africa....................................   253
      Updated Report on Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons 
        Developments.............................................   255
      Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace...............   255
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   256
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   256
      Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Global Security 
        Contingency Fund.........................................   256
      Section 1202--Notice to Congress on Certain Assistance 
        Under Authority to Conduct Activities to Enhance the 
        Capability of Foreign Countries to Respond to Incidents 
        Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction....................   257
      Section 1203--Enhanced Authority for Provision of Support 
        to Foreign Military Liaison Officers of Foreign Countries 
        While Assigned to the Department of Defense..............   257
      Section 1204--Annual Report on Human Rights Vetting and 
        Verification Procedures of the Department of Defense.....   257
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan.....   258
      Section 1211--Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response 
        Program in Afghanistan...................................   258
      Section 1212--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of 
        Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United 
        States Military Operations...............................   258
      Section 1213--Extension of Certain Authorities for Support 
        of Foreign Forces Supporting or Participating with the 
        United States Armed Forces...............................   258
      Section 1214--Report on Progress Toward Security and 
        Stability in Afghanistan under Operation Resolute Support   259
      Section 1215--Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense 
        Assistance to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 150 
        Percent of All Taxes Assessed by Afghanistan to Extent 
        Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed by Afghanistan.............   259
      Section 1216--United States Plan for Sustaining the 
        Afghanistan National Security Forces Through the End of 
        Fiscal Year 2018.........................................   260
      Section 1217--Sense of Congress on United States Military 
        Commitment to Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan..   260
      Section 1218--Extension of Afghan Special Immigrant Program   261
    Subtitle C--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation.......   261
      Section 1221--Limitation on Military Contact and 
        Cooperation between the United States and the Russian 
        Federation...............................................   261
      Section 1222--Limitation on Use of Funds With Respect to 
        Certification of Certain Flights by the Russian 
        Federation Under the Treaty on Open Skies................   262
      Section 1223--Limitations on Providing Certain Missile 
        Defense Information to the Russian Federation............   262
      Section 1224--Limitation on Availability of Funds to 
        Transfer Missile Defense Information to the Russian 
        Federation...............................................   263
      Section 1225--Report on Non-Compliance by the Russian 
        Federation of Its Obligations under the INF Treaty.......   263
      Section 1226--Sense of Congress Regarding Russian 
        Aggression Toward Ukraine................................   263
      Section 1227--Annual Report on Military and Security 
        Developments Involving the Russian Federation............   263
    Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region......   264
      Section 1231--Strategy to Prioritize United States 
        Interests in the United States Pacific Command Area of 
        Responsibility and Implementation Plan...................   264
      Section 1232--Modifications to Annual Report on Military 
        and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic 
        of China.................................................   264
      Section 1233--Report on Goals and Objectives Guiding 
        Military Engagement with Burma...........................   264
      Section 1234--Report on Department of Defense Munitions 
        Strategy for United States Pacific Command...............   265
      Section 1235--Missile Defense Cooperation..................   265
      Section 1236--Maritime Capabilities of Taiwan and Its 
        Contribution to Regional Peace and Stability.............   265
      Section 1237--Independent Assessment on Countering Anti-
        access and Area-denial Strategies and Capabilities in the 
        Asia-Pacific Region......................................   265
      Section 1238--Sense of Congress Reaffirming Security 
        Commitment to Japan......................................   266
      Section 1239--Sense of Congress on Opportunities to 
        Strengthen Relationship between the United States and the 
        Republic of Korea........................................   266
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   266
      Section 1241--Extension of Authority for Support of Special 
        Operations to Combat Terrorism...........................   266
      Section 1242--One-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-
        Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities..............   266
      Section 1243--Extension and Modification of Authority to 
        Support Operations and Activities of the Office of 
        Security Cooperation in Iraq.............................   266
      Section 1244--Modification of National Security Planning 
        Guidance to Deny Safe Havens to Al-Qaeda and Its Violent 
        Extremist Affiliates.....................................   267
      Section 1245--Enhanced Authority to Acquire Goods and 
        Services of Djibouti in Support of Department of Defense 
        Activities in United States Africa Command Area of 
        Responsibility...........................................   267
      Section 1246--Strategic Framework for United States 
        Security Force Assistance and Cooperation in the European 
        and Eurasian Regions.....................................   268
      Section 1247--Requirement of Department of Defense to 
        Continue Implementation of United States Strategy to 
        Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally and 
        Participation in Interagency Working Group...............   269
      Section 1248--Department of Defense Situational Awareness 
        of Economic and Financial Activity.......................   269
      Section 1249--Treatment of the Kurdistan Democratic Party 
        and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Under the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act..........................   269
      Section 1250--Prohibition on the Integration of Certain 
        Missile Defense Systems..................................   269
    Subtitle F--Reports and Sense of Congress Provisions.........   270
      Section 1261--Report on ``New Normal'' and General Mission 
        Requirements of United States Africa Command.............   270
      Section 1262--Report on Contractors with the Department of 
        Defense That Have Conducted Significant Transactions with 
        Iranian Persons or the Government of Iran................   270
      Section 1263--Reports on Nuclear Program of Iran...........   271
      Section 1264--Sense of Congress on United States Presence 
        and Cooperation in the Arabian Gulf Region to Deter Iran.   271
      Section 1265--Sense of Congress on Modernization of Defense 
        Capabilities of Poland...................................   272
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.........................   272
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   272
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   273
      Cooperative Biological Engagement Program..................   273
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   273
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs and Funds.......................................   273
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   274
      Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Cooperative Threat Reduction Activities with Russian 
        Federation...............................................   274
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   274
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   274
      Progress on Determining Sufficient Working Capital Fund 
        Cash Balances............................................   274
      Secure Sources of Materials Critical to National Security..   275
      Upgrading Beryllium within the National Defense Stockpile..   276
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   276
    Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   276
      Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................   276
      Section 1402--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 
        Defense..................................................   276
      Section 1403--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
        Activities, Defense-Wide.................................   276
      Section 1404--Defense Inspector General....................   276
      Section 1405--Defense Health Program.......................   277
    Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile.......................   277
      Section 1411--Revisions to Previously Authorized Disposals 
        from the National Defense Stockpile......................   277
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   277
      Section 1421--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint 
        Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs 
        Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. 
        Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois......................   277
      Section 1422--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed 
        Forces Retirement Home...................................   277
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
    CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.......................................   277
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   277
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   278
      National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment.............   278
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   278
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations.......   278
      Section 1501--Purpose......................................   278
      Section 1502--Procurement..................................   279
      Section 1503--Operation and Maintenance....................   279
      Section 1504--Military Personnel...........................   279
      Section 1505--Other Appropriations.........................   279
    Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................   279
      Section 1511--Treatment as Additional Authorizations.......   279
      Section 1512--Special Transfer Authority...................   279
    Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters..........   279
      Section 1521--Continuation of Existing Limitations on the 
        Use of Funds in the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.....   279
      Section 1522--Use of and Transfer of Funds from Joint 
        Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund..................   279
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS...   280
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   280
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   280
      Additional Homeland Missile Defense Interceptor Site.......   280
      Air Force Cyber............................................   281
      Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System.........   281
      Assessment of Foreign Nuclear Weapons Programs.............   282
      Biometrics for Identity and Access Management..............   283
      Briefing and Report on the Implementation of the Secretary 
        of Defense's Plans for Cruise Missile Defense of the 
        United States............................................   283
      Briefing on Funding Modernization of the Nuclear Deterrent.   284
      Briefing on Number of B61-12 Nuclear Gravity Bombs to Be 
        Produced.................................................   285
      Briefing on Plutonium Strategy.............................   285
      Comptroller General Assessment of U.S. Cyber Command.......   286
      Comptroller General Assessment on Airborne Intelligence, 
        Surveillance, and Reconnaissance.........................   287
      Comptroller General Evaluation on Department of Defense 
        Efforts to Protect Information and Systems from Insider 
        Threats..................................................   287
      Comptroller General Review of Nuclear Weapons Council......   288
      Conventional Prompt Strike Capability Research, 
        Development, and Acquisition.............................   289
      Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Review of Missile 
        Defense Agency Tests and Targets Efficiencies............   290
      Defense Industrial Base Information Sharing for 
        Cybersecurity............................................   290
      Defense Intelligence Priorities............................   291
      Directed Energy for Missile Defense........................   291
      E4-B and Assessments on Nuclear Command and Control........   292
      Encrypted Key Delivery.....................................   292
      Fielding of Global Positioning System Military Code........   293
      Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests for Trident II D5 
        Missiles.................................................   293
      Geospatial Intelligence for Disadvantaged Users............   294
      Global Positioning System Denied Environments..............   294
      Global Positioning System Replenishment....................   294
      High Capacity Satellite Communications.....................   295
      Human Intelligence Training Joint Center of Excellence.....   295
      Information Assurance Training and Certification...........   295
      Inspector General Review of the Activities Supporting the 
        Joint Information Environment............................   296
      Investments for Joint Information Environment Activities...   296
      Kestrel Eye Joint Capability Technology Demonstration......   297
      Long Range Discriminating Radar for Homeland Missile 
        Defense..................................................   297
      Metrics of Trust in Cybersecurity..........................   298
      Military Intelligence Program and Defense Input to the 
        National Intelligence Program............................   299
      Missile Defense Applications for Electro Magnetic Rail Gun 
        Technology...............................................   299
      Mobile User Objective System...............................   300
      Nuclear Detonation Detection System........................   301
      Operationally Responsive Space.............................   301
      Plan for Improving Cyber Situational Awareness.............   302
      Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination.................   303
      Provision of Finished Intelligence Products on the CAPITOL 
        NETWORK..................................................   303
      Remote Sensing Technology Education Programs...............   304
      Report and Plan for Minuteman III Sustainment..............   304
      Report on Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex........   305
      Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons Program...............   305
      Report on International Agreements Concerning Outer Space 
        Activities...............................................   306
      Report on Reliability, Modernization and Refurbishment of 
        the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Segment...............   306
      Report on Satellite Positioning Ground Monitoring Stations 
        Near U.S. Overseas Military Installations................   307
      Report on Strategic Submarine Command and Control in the 
        People's Republic of China...............................   308
      Requirement for Plan for Use of Highly Accelerated Life 
        Testing and Highly Accelerated Stress Screening..........   309
      Responses to Foreign Hypersonic Weapons Threats............   309
      Retirement of B83 Nuclear Gravity Bombs....................   309
      Revision to the Integrated Master Test Plan................   310
      Shortfalls in Headquarters Cyber Support Personnel.........   310
      Space-Based Reconnaissance.................................   311
      Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Exploitation 
        Program..................................................   311
      Standard Missile 3 Block IB................................   312
      Targeting Enterprise.......................................   312
      U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and 
        Operations Center........................................   313
      University Affiliated Research Centers for the Missile 
        Defense Agency...........................................   313
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   314
    Subtitle A--Space Activities.................................   314
      Section 1601--Department of Defense Space Security and 
        Defense Program..........................................   314
      Section 1602--Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
        Notification.............................................   314
      Section 1603--Satellite Communications Responsibilities of 
        Executive Agent for Space................................   315
      Section 1604--Liquid Rocket Engine Development Program.....   315
      Section 1605--Pilot Program for Acquisition of Commercial 
        Satellite Communication Services.........................   315
    Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related 
        Activities...............................................   316
      Section 1611--Assessment and Limitation on Availability of 
        Funds for Intelligence Activities and Programs of United 
        States Special Operations Command and Special Operations 
        Forces...................................................   316
      Section 1612--Annual Briefing on the Intelligence, 
        Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Requirements of the 
        Combatant Commands.......................................   316
      Section 1613--One-Year Extension of Report on Imagery 
        Intelligence and Geospatial Information Support Provided 
        to Regional Organizations and Security Alliances.........   317
      Section 1614--Tactical Exploitation of National 
        Capabilities Executive Agent.............................   317
      Section 1615--Air Force Intelligence Organization..........   317
      Section 1616--Prohibition on National Intelligence Program 
        Consolidation............................................   317
    Subtitle C--Cyberspace-related Matters.......................   318
      Section 1621--Executive Agency for Cyber Test and Training 
        Ranges...................................................   318
    Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces...................................   318
      Section 1631--Preparation of Annual Budget Request 
        Regarding Nuclear Weapons................................   318
      Section 1632--Independent Review of the Personnel 
        Reliability Program of the Department of Defense and the 
        Human Reliability Program of the Department of Energy....   319
      Section 1633--Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Secondary 
        Requirement..............................................   319
      Section 1634--Retention of Missile Silos...................   320
      Section 1635--Certification on Nuclear Force Structure.....   320
    Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs.........................   321
      Section 1641--Theater Air and Missile Defense of Allies of 
        the United States........................................   321
      Section 1642--Sense of Congress on Procurement and 
        Deployment of Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric 
        Kill Vehicle.............................................   321
TITLE XVII--DEFENSE AUDIT ADVISORY PANEL ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
    AUDITABILITY.................................................   321
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   321
      Section 1701--Findings and Purposes........................   321
      Section 1702--Establishment of Advisory Panel on Department 
        of Defense Audit Readiness...............................   322
      Section 1703--Duties of the Advisory Panel.................   322
      Section 1704--Powers of the Advisory Panel.................   322
      Section 1705--Advisory Panel Personnel Matters.............   322
      Section 1706--Termination of the Advisory Panel............   322

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   322
  PURPOSE........................................................   322
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW..............   322
      Section 2001--Short Title..................................   323
      Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts 
        Required To Be Specified by Law..........................   323
      Section 2003--Effective Date...............................   323
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................   323
  SUMMARY........................................................   323
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   323
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   323
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   324
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   324
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   324
      Section 2103--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   324
      Section 2104--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2004 Project.........................   324
      Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Projects........................   324
      Section 2106--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2011 Project........................................   325
      Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2012 Projects.......................................   325
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...........................   325
  SUMMARY........................................................   325
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   325
      Explanation of Funding Adjustment..........................   325
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   326
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   326
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   326
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   326
      Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   326
      Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects........................   326
      Section 2206--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project.........................   326
      Section 2207--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2011 Projects.......................................   326
      Section 2208--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2012 Projects.......................................   327
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.....................   327
  SUMMARY........................................................   327
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   327
      Air Force Strategic Basing Process.........................   327
      Infrastructure Deficiencies of Dining Facilities...........   327
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   328
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   328
      Section 2302--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   328
      Section 2303--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2008 Project.........................   328
      Section 2304--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2011 Project........................................   328
      Section 2305--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2012 Projects.......................................   328
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...............   328
  SUMMARY........................................................   328
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   329
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   329
      Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility.................   330
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   330
    Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations....................   330
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   330
      Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects......   330
      Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense 
        Agencies.................................................   331
      Section 2404--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2011 Projects.......................................   331
      Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2012 Projects.......................................   331
      Section 2406--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry 
        Out Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Projects Pending Submission 
        of Required Reports......................................   331
    Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations.........   331
      Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 
        Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide..............   331
      Section 2412--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2000 Project.........................   331
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
    PROGRAM......................................................   332
  SUMMARY........................................................   332
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   332
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   332
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   332
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   332
  SUMMARY........................................................   332
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   332
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   332
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   333
    Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of 
        Appropriations...........................................   333
      Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction 
        and Land Acquisition Projects............................   333
      Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   333
      Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps 
        Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects.......   234
      Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction 
        and Land Acquisition Projects............................   234
      Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   234
      Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National 
        Guard and Reserve........................................   234
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   234
      Section 2611--Modification and Extension of Authority to 
        Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects..............   234
      Section 2612--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project.........................   234
      Section 2613--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2011 Project........................................   335
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES.............   335
  SUMMARY........................................................   335
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   335
      Base Closure and Realignment Disposal Assessment...........   335
      Joint Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations.........   336
      Property Disposal Methods..................................   336
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   336
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   336
      Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base 
        Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through 
        Department of Defense Base Closure Account...............   336
    Subtitle B--Prohibition on Additional BRAC Round.............   337
      Section 2711--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base 
        Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round.....................   337
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   337
      Section 2721--Force-Structure Plans and Infrastructure 
        Inventory and Assessment of Infrastructure Necessary to 
        Support the Force Structure..............................   337
      Section 2722--Modification of Property Disposal Procedures 
        Under Base Realignment and Closure Process...............   337
      Section 2723--Final Settlement of Claims Regarding 
        Caretaker Agreement for Former Defense Depot Ogden, Utah.   337
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   338
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   338
      Army Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment....   338
      Cyber and Electromagnetic Open-Air Test Ranges.............   338
      Deployment of Secure Work Enviroments......................   338
      Facilities Modernization Model.............................   339
      Family Housing at Camp Humphreys, Korea....................   340
      High Performance Facades for Department of Defense 
        Installations............................................   340
      Innovative Building Materials and Design Techniques........   341
      Joint Land Use Study.......................................   341
      Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization........................   342
      Performance-Based Standards for Building System Components.   342
      Public-Private Family Housing on Guam......................   342
      Real Property Management...................................   343
      Report on Circumvention of Military Construction Laws......   344
      Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads...........   344
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   345
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
        Housing Changes..........................................   345
      Section 2801--Prevention of Circumvention of Military 
        Construction Laws........................................   345
      Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Unspecified Minor Military Construction..................   345
      Section 2803--Use of One-Step Turn-Key Contractor Selection 
        Procedures for Additional Facility Projects..............   345
      Section 2804--Extension of Limitation on Construction 
        Projects in European Command Area of Responsibility......   345
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   346
      Section 2811--Consultation Requirement in Connection with 
        Department of Defense Major Land Acquisitions............   346
      Section 2812--Renewals, Extensions, and Succeeding Leases 
        for Financial Institutions Operating on Military 
        Installations............................................   346
      Section 2813--Arsenal Installation Reutilization Authority.   346
      Section 2814--Deposit of Reimbursed Funds to Cover 
        Administrative Expenses Relating to Certain Real Property 
        Transactions.............................................   346
      Section 2815--Special Easement Acquisition Authority, 
        Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, 
        Hawaii...................................................   346
      Section 2816--National Security Considerations for 
        Inclusion of Federal Property on National Register of 
        Historic Places or Designation as National Historic 
        Landmark under the National Historic Preservation Act....   347
    Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military 
        Realignment..............................................   347
      Section 2831--Repeal or Modification of Certain 
        Restrictions on Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in 
        Asia-Pacific Region......................................   347
    Subtitle D--Land Conveyances.................................   347
      Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans 
        Memorial, La Jolla, California...........................   347
      Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Former Walter Reed Army 
        Hospital, District of Columbia...........................   347
      Section 2843--Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction, 
        Camp Frank D. Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia...........   347
      Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-
        Hickam, Hawaii...........................................   348
      Section 2845--Modification of Conditions on Land 
        Conveyance, Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois.......   348
      Section 2846--Land Conveyance, Robert H. Dietz Army Reserve 
        Center, Kingston, New York...............................   348
      Section 2847--Exercise of Reversionary Interest, Camp 
        Gruber, Oklahoma.........................................   348
      Section 2848--Land Conveyance, Hanford Site, Washington....   348
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   348
      Section 2861--Memorial to the Victims of the Shooting 
        Attack at the Washington Navy Yard.......................   348
      Section 2862--Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for 
        Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific 
        Center for Security Studies..............................   349
      Section 2863--Redesignation of Pohakuloa Training Area in 
        Hawaii as the Pohakuloa Training Center..................   349
      Section 2864--Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross 
        National Memorial in Riverside, California...............   349
      Section 2865--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage 
        National Historical Park, Ohio...........................   349
      Section 2866--Manhattan Project National Historical Park...   349
TITLE XXIX--MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS TO SUPPORT 
    READINESS AND SECURITY.......................................   349
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   349
    Subtitle A--Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada.................   349
      Section 2901--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, 
        Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada.........................   349
      Section 2902--Water Rights.................................   349
      Section 2903--Withdrawal...................................   350
    Subtitle B--Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine 
        Palms, California........................................   350
      Section 2911--Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway 
        Vehicle Recreation Area, California......................   350
    Subtitle C--Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military 
        Lands Efficiency and Savings.............................   350
      Section 2921--Elimination of Termination Date for Public 
        Land Withdrawals and Reservations Under Military Lands 
        Withdrawal Act of 1999...................................   350
    Subtitle D--Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California.   350
      Section 2931--Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land for 
        Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California.........   350
    Subtitle E--White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico............   350
      Section 2941--Additional Withdrawal and Reservation of 
        Public Land to Support White Sands Missile Range, New 
        Mexico...................................................   350

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
  AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................................   351

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   351
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   351
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   351
    National Nuclear Security Administration.....................   351
      Overview...................................................   351
      Weapons Activities.........................................   351
        B61-12 and W76-1 Life Extension Programs.................   351
        Deferral of the W78/88-1 Life Extension Program..........   352
        Deferred maintenance.....................................   352
        Implementation of Center for Security Technology, 
          Analysis, Response, and Testing........................   353
        Plan for Public-Private Partnerships.....................   353
        Weapons Activities and budget prioritization.............   354
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........................   354
        Adopting the Gold Standard for section 123 agreements....   354
        Explanation of Funding Adjustments for Defense Nuclear 
          Nonproliferation.......................................   355
        Nuclear Security Summit 2014.............................   356
      Naval Reactors.............................................   356
        Briefing on requirements and gaps for preserving the 
          capability to study the use of Low-Enriched Uranium for 
          Naval Reactors.........................................   356
        Naval Reactors...........................................   357
        Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project.............   358
      Office of the Administrator................................   358
        Improvements to National Nuclear Security Administration 
          budget structure.......................................   358
        Reorganization and reform................................   359
    Environmental and Other Defense Activities...................   360
      Overview...................................................   360
      Defense Environmental Cleanup..............................   360
        Environmental Management technology development program..   360
        Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..............................   360
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   360
    Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations.........   360
      Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration.....   360
      Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................   361
      Section 3103--Other Defense Activities.....................   361
      Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance................   361
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
        Limitations..............................................   361
      Section 3111--Design and Use of Prototypes of Nuclear 
        Weapons for Intelligence Purposes........................   361
      Section 3112--Authorized Personnel Levels of National 
        Nuclear Security Administration..........................   362
      Section 3113--Cost Containment for Uranium Capabilities 
        Replacement Project......................................   362
      Section 3114--Plutonium Pit Production Capacity............   363
      Section 3115--Definition of Baseline and Threshold for 
        Stockpile Life Extension Project.........................   364
      Section 3116--Production of Nuclear Warhead for Long-Range 
        Standoff Weapon..........................................   364
      Section 3117--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium......   365
      Section 3118--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Office of the Administrator for Nuclear Security.........   366
      Section 3119--Additional Limitation on Availability of 
        Funds for Office of the Administrator for Nuclear 
        Security.................................................   366
      Section 3120--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Non-
        Proliferation Activities Between the United States and 
        the Russian Federation...................................   367
      Section 3121--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Activities at Sites in 
        Russian Federation.......................................   368
    Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................   368
      Section 3131--Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation by 
        National Nuclear Security Administration.................   368
      Section 3132--Analysis and Report on W88 Alt 370 Program 
        High Explosives Options..................................   368
      Section 3133--Analysis of Existing Facilities..............   369
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   369
      Section 3141--Technical Corrections to Atomic Energy 
        Defense Act..............................................   369
      Section 3142--Technical Corrections to National Nuclear 
        Security Administration Act..............................   369
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   369
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   369
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   369
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   369
      Section 3202--Inspector General of Defense Nuclear 
        Facilities Safety Board..................................   369
      Section 3203--Number of Employees of Defense Nuclear 
        Facilities Safety Board..................................   370
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................   370
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   370
      Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations..............   370
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   370
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   370
      Obsolete Vessel ``Best Value'' Contracts...................   370
      Recapitalization of the U.S. Maritime Ready Reserve Force 
        Fleet....................................................   371
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   371
      Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National 
        Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 
        2015.....................................................   371
      Section 3502--Special Rule for DD-17.......................   371
      Section 3503--Sense of Congress on the Role of Domestic 
        Maritime Industry in National Security...................   371

DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES.......................................   371
      Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables...   371
      Summary of National Defense Authorizations for Fiscal Year 
        2015.....................................................   372
      National Defense Budget Authority Implication..............   376
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT...........................................   377
      Section 4101--Procurement..................................   377
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION..........   418
      Section 4201--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation..   418
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...........................   450
      Section 4301--Operation and Maintenance....................   450
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL...................................   476
      Section 4401--Military Personnel...........................   476
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   477
      Section 4501--Other Authorizations.........................   477
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................   480
      Section 4601--Military Construction........................   480
TABLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.....   491
      Section 4701--Department of Energy National Security 
        Programs.................................................   491

Department of Defense Authorization Request......................   503
Communications from Other Committees.............................   504
Fiscal Data......................................................   518
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................   518
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act...............   521
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................   521
Advisory of Earmarks.............................................   521
Oversight Findings...............................................   521
General Performance Goals and Objectives.........................   521
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   522
Federal Advisory Committee Statement.............................   523
Applicability to the Legislative Branch..........................   523
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................   523
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................   523
Committee Votes..................................................   523
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   539
Additional Views.................................................   540






113th Congress  }                                           {   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session     }                                           {   113-446

======================================================================



 
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 
                               YEAR 2015

                                _______
                                

  May 13, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. McKeon, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4435]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 4435) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense and 
for military construction, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendments are as follows:
    The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the 
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the 
reported bill.
    The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment 
to the text of the bill.

                       PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

    The bill would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2015 for procurement and for research, development, test, 
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2015 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working 
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2015: (a) the 
personnel strength for each Active Duty component of the 
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the 
Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed 
Forces; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for 
military personnel and impose certain requirements and 
limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; 
(5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military 
construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations 
for Overseas Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for the Department of 
Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions 
related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for the Maritime 
Administration.

                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015, is a key mechanism through which Congress 
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in 
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, 
which grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; 
to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the 
government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X 
of the House of Representatives provides the House Committee on 
Armed Services with jurisdiction over the Department of Defense 
generally and over the military application of nuclear energy. 
The committee bill includes the large majority of the findings 
and recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in 
the current year, as informed by the experience gained over the 
previous decades of the committee's existence.
    The bill reflects the committee's steadfast support of the 
courageous, professional, and dedicated men and women of the 
U.S. Armed Forces and the committee's appreciation for the 
sacrifices they make to accomplish their required missions. 
Events of the last year, ranging from on-going operations in 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, robust counter-terrorism 
efforts around the globe, to time-sensitive disaster and 
humanitarian responses, serve to highlight the U.S. military's 
flexibility and responsiveness in defending the Nation's 
interests and addressing security challenges. The committee 
understands that the capabilities of the Armed Forces are 
underpinned by the dedicated civilian employees of the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's National 
Nuclear Security Administration, as well as the defense 
industrial base. Each of these elements is required to enable 
the U.S. military to be the guarantor of peace and economic 
security that it has been for generations. The committee is 
committed to providing full authorization for the funding 
required to restore the readiness of the military; enhance the 
quality of life of military service members and their families; 
sustain and improve the Armed Forces; and properly safeguard 
the national security of the United States.
    In addition to providing authorization of appropriations, 
the committee bill would balance the force with constrained 
resources; support and protect the Nation's warfighters and 
their families; support a continued military commitment and 
U.S. presence in Afghanistan; begin the process of reforming 
Department of Defense institutions and processes; and assure 
that America's Armed Forces maintain the vital global presence 
that allows them to face current threats and prepare for new 
ones.

Resources for Warfighters and Families

    The committee remains committed to providing America's 
warfighters, veterans, and their families with the care and 
support they need, deserve, and have earned. This bill would 
authorize an extension of a wide array of bonuses, special and 
incentive pays for the Nation's men and women in uniform.
    The committee continues to maintain a focus on sexual 
assault prevention and prosecution. This bill would continue to 
refine the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response program, while at the same time requiring continued 
monitoring of the Department's implementation of the 
significant reforms enacted by Congress over the past 2 years.
    While the committee recognizes the need for compensation 
reform, it believes such reforms must be examined holistically 
before proceeding with wide-impacting changes, and it looks 
forward to reviewing the recommendations provided by the 
congressionally directed Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission. Thus, the committee rejects the 
Department's proposed piecemeal cuts to TRICARE, housing 
allowances, and commissary benefits contained in the 
President's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
    The committee is troubled by the growing suicide rate among 
members of the Armed Forces, to include the Nation's special 
operations forces. This bill would require standardization of 
the collection, reporting, and assessment of suicide data 
involving members of the Armed Forces and their family members, 
including Reserve Components, and provide enhanced tracking of 
suicide data within the Department. Additionally, this bill 
would require a review of Department of Defense efforts 
regarding suicide prevention among members of the special 
operations forces and their family members.
    This bill would also express the sense of Congress that the 
United States has a responsibility to continue to search for 
missing or captured members of the Armed Forces while 
transitioning from combat operations in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan.
    Lastly, the committee maintains serious reservations about 
the end strength and force structure reduction plans for the 
military. America remains at war today and will continue at 
some level of persistent global conflict with a committed enemy 
for the foreseeable future. Further end strength reductions 
could put at risk the military's ability to meet its global 
commitments.

Continuing Commitment to Afghanistan

    The committee recognizes that the gains in Afghan security, 
governance, and society have come as a result of the immense 
sacrifices made by U.S. and coalition forces and the Afghan 
people. The committee continues to believe that the United 
States has a vital national security interest in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda and its affiliates 
must be denied safe havens in Afghanistan and elsewhere to 
launch attacks against the United States and its allies. The 
committee, therefore, supports the post-2014 North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) mission known as Operation Resolute 
Support, and it urges the President to announce a residual U.S. 
presence in Afghanistan to demonstrate U.S. commitment, 
reassure the Afghan people, and encourage other NATO and 
coalition partners to commit to a post-2014 mission and 
presence in Afghanistan. The committee remains optimistic that 
a new Afghan president will sign the Bilateral Security 
Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, which 
would serve as a framework should also pave the way for a post-
2014 NATO-Afghanistan status of forces agreement.
    As the United States transitions from Operation Enduring 
Freedom to Operation Resolute Support, the committee expects 
the Administration to have a clear understanding of the 
missions, authorities, plans, and resources necessary to 
support Operation Resolute Support. The committee has carefully 
reviewed the authorities for which it recommends extension, 
such as the Commanders' Emergency Response Program and 
reimbursement of coalition nations for support provided to U.S. 
military operations. The committee would require a revised 
``Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in 
Afghanistan Under Operation Resolute Support'' to inform its 
understanding of the post-2014 security and economic 
environment in Afghanistan, and a plan for sustaining the 
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) through fiscal year 
2018. Additionally, the committee continues to leverage 
important oversight tools, such as the Department of Defense 
Inspector General, to ensure Department of Defense funds for 
Afghanistan are properly managed to protect against waste, 
fraud, and abuse. In this vein, the committee would require the 
Department of Defense to reduce the amount of assistance 
provided to the Government of Afghanistan during fiscal year 
2015, as a result of improper taxation of Department of Defense 
assistance by the Government of Afghanistan during fiscal year 
2014. The committee also recognizes the service performed by 
many Afghans in support of U.S. military and diplomatic 
efforts, and it would authorize additional special immigrant 
visas for Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. 
Government in Afghanistan.

Preserving Key Capabilities in a Time of Fiscal Austerity

    In April 2011, the President announced his intention to 
seek over $400.0 billion in savings within the Department of 
Defense over the next decade. Subsequently, Congress passed the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) in August 2011. 
Public Law 112-25 significantly reduced discretionary spending 
across the Federal Government and for the military in 
particular. The Department of Defense noted that cuts relating 
to Public Law 112-25 amounted to $489.0 billion. In addition, 
sequestration went into effect across the Federal Government on 
March 1, 2013, immediately reducing funds for the Department by 
$37.3 billion for fiscal year 2013. The Bipartisan Budget Act 
of 2013 (Public Law 113-67) provided National Defense some 
relief from sequestration-level funding for fiscal years 2014 
and 2015, but funding for those fiscal years remained 
relatively flat when compared to fiscal year 2013 levels. If 
sequestration-level budget caps remain in effect for fiscal 
year 2016 and beyond, the decrease to National Defense spending 
will total over $1.0 trillion, a decrease of 19 percent when 
compared to projections for defense spending less than 4 years 
ago.
    The committee recognizes that its goal of providing for the 
common defense is becoming increasingly difficult in an era of 
fiscal austerity. This bill aims to balance the force with 
constrained resources. The committee sought to find savings in 
less critical areas that do not pose the threat of irrevocable 
damage to the force or the potential to harm recruiting or 
retention. Still, at current resource levels tough choices had 
to be made.
    The committee remains concerned about readiness levels and 
their continued impact to the force in the out years unless 
sequestration is addressed. The committee is mindful that when 
readiness is low and the military is ill-equipped and 
unprepared to fight, it is the troops who pay the ultimate 
price with their lives.
    This bill would prohibit the Department from pursuing an 
additional Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round, or any 
other effort, aimed at locking in force structure reductions 
during a time of accelerated transition and the withdrawal of 
troops from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It would 
address deficiencies in the Air Force's nuclear enterprise by 
resourcing several unfunded requirements for the Nuclear Force 
Improvement Program, while also addressing nuclear security 
forces equipment shortfalls which have exacerbated the 
challenges. Additionally, it would address the Marine Corps' 
requirement to establish two new special Marine Air-Ground Task 
Forces in U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Central Command which 
are needed to support U.S. diplomatic and military 
installations around the world, requirements made exceptionally 
clear after the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. 
This bill would also take steps to enhance the hard-won 
readiness of the Army by funding unmet requirements for 
training, flying hours, and depot maintenance necessary to 
support ongoing and future operations.
    The committee has also sought to preserve key naval 
capabilities to ensure a ready and robust Navy that is prepared 
to support global combatant commander requirements. This bill 
would support the refueling of the USS George Washington, a 
carrier with 25 years of useful life left; prevent the early 
retirement of 11 cruisers and 3 dock landing ships; and 
mitigate shortfalls in the Navy's aviation depot maintenance 
accounts.
    The decrease in defense resources has resulted in tough 
choices between important programs. While this bill is able to 
fund many important programs with savings from across the 
defense enterprise, there simply was not enough to save every 
program.
    This bill would make prudent investments designed to 
preserve the integrity of the industrial base while delivering 
needed equipment to all elements of U.S. forces. These include 
Abrams tank upgrades, the Hercules and Stryker vehicles, 
tactical wheeled vehicles and the Grey Eagle program.
    In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, America's citizen 
soldiers have made repeated, heroic sacrifices in service to 
their country. Their service has made the Guard more than an 
operational reserve, but also a strategic resource. As funding 
cuts force difficult choices, the committee is working to 
preserve the appropriate balance between the active force and 
the National Guard and Reserve.
    The committee is concerned that foreign-controlled entities 
may be acquiring property near critical military assets, 
installations, and training facilities with the intent to 
monitor defense activities. Therefore, this bill would require 
a Department of Defense study that looks at gaps and 
vulnerabilities in the interagency process for public property 
estate transactions, and task the Government Accountability 
Office to review the study.
    Lastly, the committee would fund the Overseas Contingency 
Operations at $79.4 billion, consistent with the House-passed 
fiscal year 2015 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 96.

Reforming the Department Of Defense

    In an era of fiscal austerity, the committee recognizes the 
need to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
defense enterprise to get more defense for the dollar. 
Therefore, the committee recently initiated a comprehensive 
reform effort to improve the management culture, structure, and 
practices of the Department of Defense. The committee believes 
that any lasting reform will only be successful if it is 
crafted by a solid partnership between both the House of 
Representatives and Senate committees of jurisdiction, the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, each of the military 
departments, and the defense industrial base. The committee 
looks forward to working with all stakeholders on this long-
term effort. Many of the defense reform efforts included in 
this bill are informed by the beginning stages of this 
bipartisan effort, to include acquisition, institutional, 
security, and strategy reforms.
    In the area of acquisition reform, the committee aims to 
identify and drive out disincentives that increase cost and 
schedule of major programs and delay delivery of capabilities 
to the warfighter. The reform effort also identifies services 
contracting as an area where major improvements can be made. 
This bill would encourage the Secretary of Defense to improve 
data collection for services contracting and conduct better 
analysis of the data to identify waste. It would also task the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on 
opportunities to improve services contract processes. 
Additionally, this bill would direct the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation to consider the potential for 
increase in program cost estimates or delays in schedule 
estimates in the implementation of policies, procedures, and 
activities related to operational test and evaluation.
    Furthermore, as part of the ongoing effort to review the 
processes that often keep the Department of Defense from 
operating efficiently, and unintentionally create barriers to 
meaningful small business participation in the defense 
industrial base, the committee has worked closely with the 
House Committee on Small Business and the House Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. As a result of this bipartisan cooperation, 
the bill includes provisions that would remove duplicative 
processes, erase meaningless distinctions between competing 
programs, leverage procurement best practices, and better use 
the programs already in place.
    In the area of institutional reform, the committee seeks to 
ensure that any organizational changes and personnel reductions 
implemented to achieve cost savings and management efficiencies 
are being applied in the right places and are informed by a 
comprehensive assessment of mission and functional 
requirements, critical capability and skillset requirements, 
and cost drivers. This bill would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to report on combining combatant command back office 
functions to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings, and 
task GAO to assess the Department's headquarters reduction 
efforts, building off its previous work conducted for the 
committee on examining growth in Department of Defense 
headquarters. This bill would also restore the Office of Net 
Assessment to its independent status, with the Office reporting 
directly to the Secretary of Defense.
    Additionally, the committee continues to build on its prior 
work to improve the Department's fiscal responsibility, 
transparency, and accountability, and as part of the broader 
reform effort, it recommends the establishment of an advisory 
panel on Department of Defense audit readiness. The purpose of 
the panel would be to actively monitor the Department's audit 
readiness and audit work and to report on problems that need to 
be resolved with the intention to shed light on the best, most 
efficient path forward to meet the 2017 and 2019 deadlines 
relating to auditability. The advisory panel would be granted 
authority to hold hearings and receive information directly 
from the Department of Defense and would terminate in April 
2019.
    In the area of security reform, the committee is deeply 
concerned about the grave impact to U.S. national security 
caused by the unauthorized disclosure of classified 
information. Such disclosures not only jeopardize U.S. military 
operations, capabilities, and technology, they ultimately lead 
to the loss of lives. This bill, therefore, directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide the committee with frequent 
reports on its damage assessment resulting from these 
unauthorized disclosures and steps the Department is taking to 
mitigate the damage.
    Lastly, in the area of strategy reform, the committee notes 
that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) has grown less 
compliant with the law over time and strayed further from the 
intent of Congress. The committee believes the QDR should 
provide a mechanism for setting the priorities of the 
Department of Defense, shaping the force, guiding capabilities 
and resources, and adjusting the organization to respond to 
changes in the strategic environment. In addition, it should 
assist Congress in better understanding the relationships and 
tradeoffs between missions, risks, and resources, particularly 
in light of geopolitical changes and domestic developments in 
the last few years. Therefore, this bill would require the 
Secretary to resubmit the 2014 QDR and it would propose 
sweeping changes to the Department's defense strategy review 
process and reporting elements.

Addressing Current Threats and Preparing for New Challenges

    The committee recognizes that it must focus not only on 
addressing current threats, but also on preparing for emerging 
and evolving challenges in an increasingly uncertain global 
security environment, and it must ensure that defense resources 
are balanced between the two objectives.
    The committee remains concerned about U.S. posture and 
presence in the Asia-Pacific region to deter aggression and 
reassure allies and partners. The committee conducted an Asia-
Pacific oversight series, focusing largely on these 
developments and the implications of the Administration's 
rebalance to Asia on Department of Defense capabilities and 
investments. Many of the Asia-Pacific- related provisions 
contained in this bill reflect the findings and recommendations 
that emerged from the oversight series.
    As the mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
transitions and the military rebalances towards Asia, the 
committee remains concerned about the persistent Al Qaeda 
threat. This bill would require a report on the national 
security planning guidance to address Al Qaeda safe havens, and 
maintain prohibitions associated with the Guantanamo Bay 
Detention Facility, including the bi-partisan prohibitions on 
the transfer of detainees to the United States and on the 
construction of terrorist detention facilities in the United 
States.
    The committee believes that an enduring presence in the 
Middle East is vital, to include maintaining a robust forward 
presence and posture to support U.S. allies and partners in the 
region and to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran. This bill 
would express congressional concern that many key bases are 
funded through Overseas Contingency Operations funding and not 
supported by status of forces agreements (SOFA). The committee 
urges the President to shift to an enduring posture in the 
Middle East and seek SOFA agreements with Gulf Cooperation 
Council states. This bill would also recognize the President's 
determination that the Arab Republic of Egypt is progressing in 
its democratic transition and supports the President's decision 
to deliver 10 Apache helicopters to Egypt for counterterrorism 
operations. This bill further reflects congressional concern 
regarding the influx of foreign fighters in the Syrian Arab 
Republic and the committee's belief that ``prudent planning'' 
to support regional allies impacted by the Syria conflict is 
warranted. The bill would also reflect the committee's belief 
that an American presence in the Arabian Gulf is vital to deter 
Iran as well as its belief that any comprehensive deal on 
Iran's nuclear program should address past and present issues 
of concern with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
and should require Iran to cease enrichment of uranium, address 
ballistic missile and conventional military systems, and stop 
support for international terrorism.
    Shifting to Africa, the committee believes that U.S. Africa 
Command (AFRICOM) is on the front lines of the next phase of 
the terrorist threat, and this bill would seek to reinforce 
AFRICOM's capabilities while also demanding accountability. It 
recognizes the contributions the Republic of Djibouti has made 
as a key strategic partner and establishes a number of programs 
to ensure the relationship is enduring. It further requires a 
report on the ``New Normal'' and general mission requirements 
for AFRICOM, as well as a report on the readiness implications 
of the Army's Regionally Aligned Brigade concept in Africa.
    The committee condemns the recent aggressive actions 
undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation in 
Ukraine, which include Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea, 
deployment of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers near the 
Ukrainian border, and its infiltration and destabilization of 
eastern Ukraine. The committee therefore would limit U.S.-
Russia military contact and cooperation and limit the use of 
funds for Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security 
Administration activities with Russia. The NATO alliance 
remains a cornerstone of international security, and the 
committee would seek to further strengthen the alliance and 
reassure U.S. allies and partners in Europe through measures 
such as requiring a comprehensive strategic framework for 
security force assistance to European and Eurasian forces and 
providing additional funds for the Warsaw Initiative Fund/
Partnership for Peace program.
    Lastly, in the area of missile defense, the bill would 
fully fund the redesigned kill vehicle for the Ground-based 
Missile Defense system and the new long-range discriminating 
sensor, as well as support steps to ensure greater reliability 
and maintenance of the system. This bill would support the 
Israeli Cooperative and Iron Dome programs, recognizing the 
importance of missile defense capabilities for U.S. allies and 
partners, and provide increased investment for directed energy 
and other next-generation technologies for missile defense.

                                HEARINGS

    Committee consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 results from hearings 
that began on March 5, 2014, and that were completed on April 
10, 2014. The full committee conducted seven sessions. In 
addition, a total of 16 sessions were conducted by 6 different 
subcommittees.

                           COMMITTEE POSITION

    On May 7, 2014, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 
being present, approved H.R. 4435, as amended, by a vote of 61-
0.

                EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

    The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 4435. The title of 
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the 
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as 
amended.

            RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS

    The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This 
bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts 
will provide budget authority. However, the committee strives 
to adhere to the recommendations as issued by the Committee on 
the Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee.
    The bill addresses the following categories in the 
Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, 
development, test, and evaluation; operation and maintenance; 
military personnel; working capital funds; and military 
construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National 
Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve and the Maritime 
Administration.
    Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in 
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military 
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of 
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide 
authorization of specific dollar amounts for military 
personnel.

          SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL

    The President requested discretionary budget authority of 
$592.9 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the 
committee for fiscal year 2015. Of this amount, $495.6 billion 
was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense programs, 
$79.4 billion was requested for the Overseas Contingency 
Operations requirements covering the entire fiscal year, and 
$17.9 billion was requested for Department of Energy national 
security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board.
    The committee recommends an overall discretionary 
authorization of $592.9 billion in fiscal year 2015, including 
$79.4 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. The base 
committee authorization of $513.4 billion is a $31.0 billion 
decrease below the levels provided for in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
    The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in 
division D of this report summarizes the committee's 
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation 
account for fiscal year 2015 and compares these amounts to the 
President's request.

                      BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

    The President's total request for the national defense 
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2015 is $609.1 billion, as 
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to 
funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050 
request includes discretionary funding for national defense 
programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary 
funding for programs that do not require additional 
authorization in fiscal year 2015, and mandatory programs.
    The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in 
division D of this report details changes to all aspects of the 
national defense budget function.
            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $90.6 
billion for procurement. This represents a $3.0 billion 
decrease over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2014.
    The committee recommends authorization of $91.0 billion, an 
increase of $1.5 billion from the fiscal year 2015 request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
procurement program are identified in division D of this Act.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $5.1 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $5.3 billion, an increase of $147.4 
million, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest

Armed aerial scout strategy
    The committee notes that because of sequestration and 
limited resources, the Army has announced the Aviation 
Restructure Initiative (ARI) which retires older platforms and 
defers the armed reconnaissance requirement for a replacement 
to the current OH-58 Kiowa series helicopter. The committee 
understands that as a result of the ARI, the Army will utilize 
AH-64 Apache helicopters, teamed with the Shadow Unmanned 
Aerial Systems, as an interim solution to meet the armed 
reconnaissance mission. However, the committee is concerned 
that the Army's plan does not address how the Army intends to 
eventually meet the enduring requirement for a manned armed 
scout helicopter.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
not later than February 15, 2015, that includes a description 
of the interim Apache scout implementation plan, as well as the 
concept for what a follow-on plan and necessary resources would 
be required to replace the interim solution with a platform 
that fully meets the validated requirement.
Army Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft
    The committee is aware of the Department of the Army's 
Aerial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) 
2020 vision. The committee recognizes that there are a variety 
of platforms and capabilities, both Government and contractor 
owned, that are being transitioned from a wartime environment 
to a more stable strategic posture, but the committee is 
concerned that the Army has not clearly identified the current 
and future capacity and capability requirements for Aerial ISR. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by 
December 1, 2014, on the Army's Aerial ISR requirements and how 
those requirements will be addressed in the future.
Army Signals Intelligence modernization
    The committee understands that there are at least six Army 
Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) programs in use or planned for 
near-term fielding, including: Guard Rail Common Sensor; 
Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance 
System; Tactical SIGINT Program; Quick Reaction Capability C-
12s; Airborne Reconnaissance Low; and the Prophet ground SIGINT 
collection platform. The committee is concerned that 
maintaining six different SIGINT collection systems for these 
platforms is costly and inefficient, as well as potentially 
unsustainable given the current fiscal environment.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees and 
the congressional intelligence committees by February 16, 2015, 
that would present a SIGINT modernization plan, including a 
detailed plan of action and milestones with anticipated costs 
and schedules. The report should also consider the advisability 
and feasibility of potentially converging all six Army SIGINT 
programs to a common hardware baseline that is contractor 
independent, with open architecture that could allow for the 
use of software reprogrammable radios, as well as provide the 
capability for insertion of emerging technologies and 
collection capabilities.
Divestiture of rotorcraft through Army's Aviation Restructure 
        Initiative
    The committee is aware of the Army's plan to divest certain 
rotorcraft, such as the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, OH-58 A/C, and 
TH-67 primary training helicopters, as part of its Aviation 
Restructure Initiative. While the committee understands the 
fiscal pressures facing the Army and supports its efforts to 
restructure the rotorcraft force, the committee is concerned 
that the planned divestiture of more than 750 aircraft between 
fiscal years 2015-19 could have a negative impact on the 
rotorcraft industrial base which has already been impacted by 
declining defense spending.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
by September 1, 2014, on the criteria for transferring these 
helicopters as excess defense articles into the domestic and 
international markets. As part of this briefing, the Army 
should include an assessment of how its criteria for 
divestiture meet all Federal laws and regulations governing 
such equipment, including:
    (1) A statement outlining the purposes for which the 
article is being provided to any foreign country, including 
whether such article has been previously provided to that 
country;
    (2) An assessment of the impact of the transfer on the 
military readiness of the United States;
    (3) An assessment of the impact of the transfer on the 
national technology and industrial base and, particularly, the 
impact on opportunities of entities in the national technology 
and industrial base to sell new or used equipment to foreign 
countries to which such articles might be transferred; and
    (4) A statement describing the current value of such 
articles and the value of such articles at acquisition.
Improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications
    The budget request contained $190.5 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army for the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned Aerial 
System.
    The committee notes that the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned 
Aircraft System provides critical intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to combatant commanders. 
The committee understands that development efforts have already 
been completed to modify the current Gray Eagle platform in 
order to provide extended range capabilities. This capability, 
known as the Improved Gray Eagle, includes significant 
expansion of the fuselage to accommodate larger fuel capacity 
and additional payloads as well as integration of an improved 
heavy fuel engine to support takeoff at heavier weights. 
However, funding for these modifications was not included in 
the budget request. The committee believes the increased 
endurance of a modified Gray Eagle would provide combatant 
commanders greater employment options at increased ranges, 
expanded payload options, and improved basing flexibility in 
support of the Global ISR mission.
    The committee recommends $239.5 million, an increase of 
$49.0 million, for improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.0 
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1.0 billion, full funding of the request, for 
fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.5 
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.7 billion, 
an increase of $230.2 million, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 
program are identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Combat vehicle industrial base management

    The committee notes that as a result of the Budget Control 
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the Army is in the process of 
reducing its Active Duty end strength to 420,000, unless 
sequestration is resolved. In addition, the Army has also 
announced plans to reduce Active Component Brigade Combat Teams 
(BCTs) from 45 to 32. The active Army has 17 Armor BCTs (ABCT), 
20 Infantry BCTs, and 8 Stryker BCTs. The committee notes that 
the ABCT, which is comprised of Abrams tanks and Bradley 
fighting vehicles, is the only full-spectrum force in the 
Army's force structure. With regard to the future utility of 
armored forces, the committee notes that a RAND Corporation 
report from 2010 concluded that, ``Heavy forces--based on tanks 
and infantry fighting vehicles--are key elements of any force 
that will fight hybrid enemies that have a modicum of training, 
organization, and advanced weapons. Light and medium forces can 
complement heavy forces, particularly in urban and other 
complex terrain; they do not provide the survivability, 
lethality, or mobility inherent in heavy forces. Quite simply, 
heavy forces reduce operational risks and minimize friendly 
casualties.''
    The committee remains concerned that the Army may eliminate 
too many ABCTs based on resource constraints rather than 
meeting the needs of combatant commanders. Although the 
committee has been informed that the Army will add a third 
maneuver battalion back into the Active Component Armor and 
Infantry BCTs, the committee has not been briefed on final 
force structure and BCT mix decisions. The committee is 
supportive of all BCTs having a third maneuver battalion and 
notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) 
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007, the committee opposed the Army's original 
decision of having two maneuver battalions per BCT.
    In addition to the mix of BCTs, the committee needs to 
better understand the ramifications to the future combat 
vehicle industrial base capabilities with regard to the Abrams 
tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin howitzer, Hercules 
recovery vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and the 
Stryker combat vehicle. Specifically, the committee is 
concerned about the Army's position that Foreign Military Sales 
(FMS) alone is sufficient to sustain the viability of the 
combat vehicle industrial base. The committee believes that the 
associated impact this position has on the industrial base at 
both the prime contractor and vendor level poses an 
unacceptable level of risk. The committee acknowledges that the 
Army has made positive strides in regards to FMS cases. 
However, FMS cases often take years longer than originally 
planned to materialize. In addition, many FMS cases procure 
less capable variants which do not always equate to positive 
workload at the prime and vendor levels. The committee 
continues to believe that insufficient information is available 
to Congress to make an informed decision regarding current and 
potential future risks to the combat vehicle industrial base at 
the prime and vendor levels. The committee commends the Army 
for beginning the process to finally collect the necessary 
analytical information required to make informed decisions 
about the long-term sustainment of the combat vehicle 
industrial base.
    Finally, the committee applauds the Army for its efforts to 
accelerate the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) programs for 
the M1 Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle and Stryker combat 
vehicle. The out-year funding reflected in the budget request 
for fiscal year 2015 indicates a commitment by the Army to move 
forward with the next major technology upgrades for the 
existing fleet of weapons systems that would ensure fielding of 
the highest quality combat vehicles to a smaller force and also 
sustain the fragile industrial base. However, the committee 
remains concerned about the stability of Army modernization 
funding in fiscal year 2016 and beyond given the implications 
of sequestration. The committee believes multiyear procurement 
contracts may reduce overall cost and help stabilize the 
industrial base and notes that there is precedent for 
successful Army combat vehicle multiyear procurements. 
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army, 
in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States 
Code, to request multiyear procurement authority in future 
budget requests for the Abrams ECP 1, Bradley ECP 2, and 
Stryker ECP 1 programs.

Abrams tank upgrades

    The budget request contained no funding for the M1A2 Abrams 
tank upgrade program.
    The committee continues to believe that the Army must 
maintain the capability of Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) 
formations to over match any possible threat. The committee 
notes that in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces, senior Army officials testified that the Army 
does not plan to close down the industrial facilities used to 
upgrade M1 Abrams tanks. In addition, the same senior Army 
officials testified that these critical industrial base 
facilities would have been at serious risk had it not been for 
additional funding authorized and appropriated by Congress. The 
committee understands the next scheduled upgrade for the Abrams 
tank has been moved up to 2017 from 2019. The committee 
commends the Army's decision to accelerate this upgrade, and 
notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, the committee encouraged the Army take this action. 
The committee continues to believe this course of action will 
mitigate risk within the combat vehicle industrial base.
    While the committee understands that the Army believes that 
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) alone are enough to keep the 
Abrams tank line ``warm'' until the 2017 time frame, based on 
current world events, the committee continues to believe that 
reliance upon FMS alone poses an unacceptable level of risk to 
our combat vehicle industrial base and thus to our national 
security. As a result, the committee believes that the best 
course of action would be a combination of continued tank 
upgrades for the Abrams tank program and ongoing FMS; the 
combination of which should maintain production lines and 
suppliers until the next Abrams tank upgrade program begins. 
The committee acknowledges that if all FMS cases materialize as 
planned, the Army may not need additional funding in fiscal 
year 2015 in order to mitigate risk through the 2017 time 
frame. However, according to the information provided to the 
committee by the Army, the committee will not know if these FMS 
cases have been funded until the December 2014 time frame.
    With regard to the military need for more M1A2 Abrams tank 
upgrades, the committee notes that six National Guard ABCTs are 
currently equipped with a less capable version of the Abrams 
tank. Therefore, the committee believes that as long as the 
National Guard has a less capable version of the Abrams tank, 
there will be a requirement for additional modernized M1A2 
Abrams tanks.
    The committee recommends $120.0 million in Procurement of 
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for the Abrams tank 
upgrade program.

Hercules recovery vehicle

    The budget request contained $50.5 million for the M88A2 
improved recovery vehicle program.
    The committee is aware that in order to provide greater 
protection for soldiers, the Army's current and future fleet of 
combat vehicles has grown significantly in weight. As a result, 
the current fleet of M88A1 recovery vehicles is approaching its 
maximum capability, and its capability will be greatly exceeded 
by the future fleet of combat vehicles. The committee notes 
that the M88A2 is the only vehicle that can single-handedly 
recover a main battle tank, and that it was the only vehicle in 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that could recover larger 
mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The committee 
understands that the Army has recently increased the M88A2 
acquisition objective to 933 systems, of which only 749 have 
been funded for procurement through fiscal year 2015. The 
committee supports the Army's decision to include funding in 
the budget request for procurement of M88A2 vehicles, but 
believes additional funding is necessary to maintain 
production. The committee encourages the Army to pursue a 
``pure fleet'' strategy in future budget requests.
    The committee recommends $121.2 million, an increase of 
$70.7 million, for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program.

Stryker combat vehicle modifications

    The budget request contained $385.1 million in Weapons and 
Tracked Compact Vehicles, Army for continued procurement of 
upgraded Stryker combat vehicles and $90.2 million in PE 23735A 
to continue the Stryker Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 
program.
    The committee continues to support the Army's Stryker 
program and in particular the Double-V Hull (DVH) program that 
makes Stryker one of the most survivable and mobile vehicles in 
the Army's inventory. The budget request included funding for 
the second year of a 3-year procurement of DVH Strykers for a 
third brigade set. The committee is aware the Army has a 
documented requirement to equip all nine of its Stryker Brigade 
Combat Teams with the DVH Stryker. The committee understands 
the Army wants to begin procurement of a fourth brigade set of 
DVH Strykers starting in fiscal year 2016. The Army also has an 
unfunded requirement to accelerate the Stryker ECP program. The 
Stryker ECP effort includes increased horsepower, network 
integration, and other improvements. The committee notes that 
the Army wants to accelerate Stryker ECP development in order 
to produce DVH Strykers for the fourth brigade set that 
incorporate the ECP upgrade.
    The committee supports this initiative and recommends 
$435.1 million, an increase of $50.0 million, for Stryker 
procurement and $115.2 million, an increase of $25.0 million, 
in PE 23735A to accelerate Stryker ECP development.

M9 upgrades

    The committee understands the Army is preparing to 
competitively pursue a non-developmental item, commercial-off-
the-shelf replacement handgun for the current M9 pistol. The 
committee notes that the Army's modular handgun system (MHS) is 
intended to provide soldiers with improved lethality, accuracy, 
ergonomics, reliability, durability, and maintainability over 
current systems. While the committee supports the MHS program, 
the committee is aware that there may be an upgrade 
configuration for the M9 that could provide increased 
operational effectiveness while reducing life-cycle costs as 
well as enhancing training capabilities. The committee notes 
that because there are approximately 240,000 M9 pistols in the 
current inventory and that the current procurement objective 
for the MHS is still being determined, the committee encourages 
the Army to consider an M9 upgrade program as a potential 
complementary program to the MHS.

Transmission industrial base

    The committee notes that the Army commissioned a 
comprehensive assessment of the combat vehicle industrial base 
to better understand the issues and challenges facing the 
vendor industrial base. The first phase of the assessment, 
which was completed last year, identified combat vehicle 
transmissions as a significant area of concern. The assessment 
concluded that combat vehicle transmissions are unique in that 
they not only provide power to combat vehicles but also control 
braking and steering. In other words, combat vehicle 
transmissions are entirely different than commercial 
transmissions, such as those that power the military's tactical 
wheeled vehicle fleet. Although it has not been provided the 
Army's final report, the committee understands the assessment 
and recommends mitigation measures for the tracked combat 
vehicle transmission industrial base.
    The committee notes that although the Army has terminated 
the Ground Combat Vehicle program, the Army has several tracked 
vehicle programs in development or production. These include 
the Armored Multi-purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program, the Paladin 
Integrated Management (PIM) program, M88 recovery vehicle 
program and major upgrades called ``Engineering Change 
Proposals'' (ECP) for both the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting 
vehicle. All of these vehicles are eligible for upgraded or 
improved transmissions. The committee understands there are 
only a few companies that produce transmissions for tracked 
combat vehicles within the United States. Based on the results 
of the Army's assessment, the committee is concerned about the 
future viability of transmissions for tracked combat vehicles 
based on low production rates and projected levels of funding 
in the out years that may not support minimum sustaining rates 
of production. The committee believes it may be necessary to 
consider consolidation of production capabilities through a 
partnership with existing suppliers.
    The committee notes the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy continues 
to direct a sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier review of the 
defense industrial base and includes findings from that review 
in the annual Industrial Base Capabilities Report to Congress, 
which is required by section 2504 of title 10, United States 
Code. However, the last annual report, delivered to Congress in 
October 2013, did not specifically address the committee's 
concerns related to combat vehicle transmissions.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than February 15, 2015, on the combat vehicle 
transmission industrial base. The report should not continue to 
summarize the challenges confronting the U.S. tracked vehicle 
transmission industrial base, but should instead detail 
specific mitigation measures and their implementation. 
Specifically, the report should include the Army's plans and 
potential funding profile that would be necessary to procure 
new or improved combat vehicle transmissions for the AMPV, PIM, 
M88 and Abrams and Bradley ECP programs, to include the 
opportunity to exploit new technologies such as electric 
drives. In addition, the report should include an assessment of 
the potential to begin a 2-year pilot combat vehicle 
transmission program that would address the feasibility of 
consolidating production capabilities through a partnership 
with existing and potential suppliers.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.0 
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $1.0 billion, a decrease of $23.4 
million, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Munitions industrial base management

    The committee notes that declining defense resources will 
likely result in a smaller munitions industrial base and that 
efforts are on-going to achieve a right-sized base that remains 
fully capable and viable. The committee is aware of the 
collaborative work being done by the Single Manager for 
Conventional Ammunition (SMCA) and industry to develop 
management tools to help manage the industrial base. In 
particular, the committee notes that the Industrial Base 
Assessment Tool (IBAT) and the Minimum Sustaining Rate (MSR) 
database will use an iterative process to enable analysis of 
proposed ammunition procurement to identify potential negative 
impacts on the viability or capability of the munitions 
industrial base. The committee understands that avoidance of 
such impacts is essential for a base that, although 
considerably smaller, must continue to meet the many, varied 
needs of the military services. To that end, the committee 
believes that early knowledge of the budgetary plans of the 
military services would allow the SMCA to assess the capability 
of the munitions industrial base to respond, identify potential 
impacts, and point out alternatives for meeting immediate needs 
that do not jeopardize long-term viability of the munitions 
industrial base.
    The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to ensure 
that adequate funds are made available through the annual 
budget process to develop, operate, and maintain the management 
tools required to support the foregoing iterative process, 
including but not limited to, the IBAT and the MSR database.

M982 Excalibur program

    The budget request contained $35.6 million for 416 
Excalibur precision guided artillery Ib rounds.
    The M982 Excalibur round is a precision guided 155mm 
artillery round that is used by the Army and the Marine Corps. 
The committee notes that over 745 Excalibur rounds have been 
used by the Army and the Marine Corps in Operation Enduring 
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom with high success rates.
    The committee supports the Excalibur program and believes 
that this precision guided capability is a combat multiplier. 
The committee understands the program remains on cost and 
schedule with a full-rate production decision scheduled for 
June 2014. The committee also understands that the Army is now 
procuring the Excalibur Ib round, which has significantly 
decreased program costs, while also providing increased 
performance and reliability. The committee notes the Army is 
currently conducting a comprehensive precision fires capability 
portfolio review and that the total procurement objective for 
Excalibur rounds could increase in future years. The committee 
encourages the Army to consider, as part of this precision 
fires capability portfolio review, the advisability and 
feasibility of replacing the current inventory of Excalibur Ia-
1 and Ia-2 rounds with Ib rounds.
    The committee recommends $35.6 million, the full amount of 
the request, for the procurement of Excalibur Ib rounds.

Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support initiative

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
report on potential improvements to the Armament Retooling and 
Manufacturing Support (ARMS) program initiative. The committee 
has not received this report and understands the Secretary of 
the Army plans to deliver it in June 2014.
    The committee continues to believe the Army's Government-
owned ammunition plants are critical to the Nation's readiness 
and to equipping the U.S. Armed Forces. The committee 
understands the ARMS program was created to allow the Army to 
rent to commercial companies portions of its Army Ammunition 
Plants (AAPs) that were not being used in production. The 
committee notes that revenues from the property rental are used 
to pay for the operation, maintenance and environmental clean-
up at the facilities, and that the savings in overhead cost 
lowers the production cost of the goods manufactured, as well 
as funds the environmental clean-up at no cost to the taxpayer. 
The committee understands the following AAPs are participating 
in the ARMS program: Hawthorne Army Depot, Holston AAP, Iowa 
AAP, Lake City AAP, Milan AAP, Radford AAP, and Scranton AAP. 
The committee encourages the Army to maximize available 
capacity at these AAPs. For example, the committee notes that 
Milan AAP is using over 800,000 square feet for ARMS 
activities.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to 
continue to effectively utilize the ARMS program, and 
encourages the Army to find new and effective ways to improve 
upon cooperation and coordination among the Army, property 
managers, commercial interests, local and state agencies, and 
local economic development organizations to promote effective 
utilization of ARMS.

                        Other Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.9 
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $4.7 billion, a decrease of $192.4 million, 
for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Other Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of 
this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Army ultra-light reconnaissance robot programs

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
report on the advisability and feasibility of incorporating 
ultra-light reconnaissance robot (ULRR) capability as an 
enduring requirement. The report submitted to the committee by 
the Secretary stated that the current Army Unmanned Systems 
Management Plan validated the advisability of developing a 
variety of ULRR sensors to operate at the lowest tactical 
levels as part of an enduring requirement for all Active and 
Reserve Component units. In addition, the Secretary's report 
noted that tactical micro-robotic systems could free soldiers 
from direct exposure to a multitude of lethal threats across a 
host of common, squad-level mission sets. However, the report 
also noted some technical challenges, including radio frequency 
spectrum issues involved in systems used during Operation 
Enduring Freedom, once back in the United States.
    Given the substantial investment in ULRR by the Army to-
date and the conclusions provided in the report, the committee 
encourages the Army to transition ULRR into a formal program-
of-record so that any technical, logistical, or training issues 
associated with incorporation of ULRR into Army units may be 
resolved.

Body armor industrial base risk mitigation

    The committee understands that the body armor industrial 
base includes the combat helmet industrial base, soft armor 
industrial base, and hard body armor industrial base. In the 
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee 
directed the Secretary of the Army to provide an assessment of 
the long term sustainment requirements for the body armor 
industrial base, to include supply chains for combat helmets, 
soft armor, and hard armor components. The committee received 
this assessment in March 2014.
    The committee understands that the military services would 
prefer to maintain at least two viable industrial base vendors 
for each area of the industrial base in order to mitigate 
serious risk, maintain competition for better body armor 
technology, as well as to retain required surge capacity. The 
committee is concerned that current funding profiles may not 
allow for two viable vendors in each area. The committee 
understands that without additional resources or additional 
contracts the industrial base would default to only one 
supplier in August 2015. The committee understands that 
specialty materials such as ballistic fibers and ceramics are 
raw material building blocks for body armor systems, and that 
few profitable applications for these materials exist outside 
of Department of Defense body armor programs. While foreign 
military sales (FMS) could offer industry an additional means 
for the manufacture and sale of various body armor components, 
there has been limited FMS interest from foreign countries.
    Based on this required assessment, as well as other 
assessments the committee has reviewed from the Defense 
Logistics Agency, the committee understands that there is 
significant risk to the hard armor industrial base both in the 
near-term and the long-term. The committee is concerned that 
the two qualified manufacturers are producing at below minimum 
sustaining rates, and that this could jeopardize their 
financial stability and viability beginning in fiscal year 
2015. The committee also notes that one of the hard armor 
vendors is the sole supplier of a particular ceramic raw 
material to the Department of Defense and believes that the 
Department of Defense may lose the capability to meet surge 
requirements beginning in fiscal year 2015. The committee is 
concerned that once a capability, such as hard body armor, 
disappears and production lines are dismantled, it is projected 
that it would take at least 18 months to reconstitute that 
capability.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends an increase 
of $80.0 million in operation and maintenance, Army, to help 
mitigate risk to the hard armor industrial base and maintain 
two viable vendors.

Tactical generator recapitalization

    The committee is aware that generators are the biggest 
consumers of diesel fuel in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
for the Army and Marine Corps. Given Department of Defense 
directives to reduce costs through increased fuel efficiency, 
the committee supports service decisions to procure next 
generation tactical generators like the Advanced Medium Mobile 
Power Sources (AMMPS), which could produce over 20 percent 
greater fuel efficiency and 40 percent greater reliability than 
the current fleet of Tactical Quiet Generators (TQGs). The 
committee understands that when the AMMPS fleet is fully 
deployed and operating, the Department of Defense estimates it 
will realize an annual savings of $745.0 million and 52.0 
million gallons of diesel fuel over TQGs.
    The committee expects the military services to consider 
robust goals for increased fuel efficiency and reliability as 
part of any tactical generator recapitalization strategy. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
brief the congressional defense committees no later than 
November 3, 2014 on service plans to recapitalize tactical 
generator systems, associated fuel efficiency and reliability 
targets, and the financial impact that achieving these targets 
would have on fuel expenditures.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles

    The budget request contained $28.4 million for the family 
of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV). The budget request also 
contained $89.2 million for the Palletized Load System (PLS) 
Extended Service Program (ESP). The budget request contained no 
funding for the Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical Truck (HEMTT) 
extended service program (ESP).
    The committee notes with concern that the budget request 
included no funding for the HEMTT ESP within the FHTV program. 
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is concerned 
about the long-term viability of the tactical wheeled vehicle 
industrial base. The committee notes the Army had originally 
programmed $250.0 million for HEMTT ESP over the Future Years 
Defense Program, but that funding has now been reinvested into 
other outstanding, higher-priority requirements within FHTV, 
notably the PLS ESP. The committee understands that there still 
remains at least a 3-year requirement for HEMTT ESP.
    The committee is aware that based on the HEMTT ESP 
requirement identified in previous Army budget submissions, the 
Secretary of the Army does plan to include funding for HEMTT 
ESP in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget request 
for fiscal year 2015. While the actual timing of the submission 
of the OCO budget request is still uncertain, the committee 
believes additional funding would be required to help maintain 
balance in the heavy tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base.
    The committee recommends $50.0 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, for continued production of HEMTT ESP vehicles.

Family of medium tactical vehicles

    The budget request contained no funds for the family of 
medium tactical vehicles (FMTVs).
    The committee is concerned about the current and future 
viability of the tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base. The 
committee is concerned that while budget request justification 
materials indicate that no funding is required for new FMTV 
procurement in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the out-
year funding requests include $248.9 million and $249.1 million 
in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018, respectively. The 
committee believes that this strategy of stopping and 
restarting mature production lines is inefficient and 
problematic for the medium tactical wheeled vehicle industrial 
base.
    The committee believes that smooth and predictable funding 
levels, and not abrupt and large swings in funding and 
production requirements, would result in the best outcome for 
taxpayers, the industrial base, the military services, and, 
ultimately, the warfighter. The committee recommends mitigating 
any unnecessary breaks in FMTV production, and where possible, 
encourages the Army to maintain at least minimum sustaining 
rates of production. The committee understands the Secretary of 
the Army has requested additional funding for new FMTV 
production in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget 
request. The committee believes that these funds would help to 
mitigate some breaks in FMTV production, but notes that there 
is uncertainty over the timing of the OCO budget request. The 
committee believes the Army should realign the current funding 
profile for FMTV production across the Future Years Defense 
Program.
    The committee recommends $50.0 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, for continued production of new FMTVs.

Military combat eye protection program

    The budget request contained no funds for a military combat 
eye protection program.
    The committee notes that requests for military combat 
eyewear are usually included in the Rapid Fielding Initiative 
(RFI) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget request, 
which is based on providing RFI equipment to all deploying 
soldiers. The committee has not yet received the OCO budget 
request for fiscal year 2015. The committee understands the RFI 
leverages current programs, lessons learned from Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as 
commercial-off-the-shelf technology to give soldiers increased 
survivability, lethality, and mobility. The committee expects 
funding for military combat eyewear to be requested through the 
OCO budget request.
    The committee understands the Army's military combat eye 
protection program was developed to ensure a standardized level 
of ballistic and environmental performance for protective 
eyewear. The committee understands the Army has created an 
Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL) that allows Program 
Executive Office-Soldier to offer more choices in combat 
ballistic eyewear, which improves soldier acceptance and use of 
protective eyewear.
    The committee commends the Army for establishing the APEL, 
encourages the continued rapid fielding of ballistic protective 
eyewear to all military personnel so that they can ``train as 
they fight'', as well as to provide protection against a wide 
array of threats while deployed and in training. The committee 
encourages the Secretaries of the military departments to 
consider the potential training and operational benefits of 
issuing combat protective eyewear to all basic military 
trainees.

Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles

    The budget request contained $14.7 million for mine-
resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicle modifications.
    The committee recognizes that mine-resistant ambush-
protected vehicles were rapidly procured to address critical 
warfighter requirements in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
and the Republic of Iraq. The committee notes these vehicles 
proved invaluable at protecting military service personnel from 
improvised explosive devices, and saved lives. The committee 
understands that current MRAP vehicle quantities exceed future 
requirements set forth by the military services. The committee 
recognizes the military services have carefully considered 
current and future requirements, as well as their ability to 
man, equip, train, and sustain MRAP vehicles to determine which 
vehicles should be retained as part of their enduring 
capability of protected mobility, route clearance, and 
Explosive Ordnance Disposal platforms. The committee 
understands the military services will retain the most capable 
MRAP vehicles to meet military operational and training needs.
    The committee notes that approximately 13,000 excess MRAP 
vehicles will first be offered to other U.S. Government 
entities and then to potential foreign military sales (FMS) or 
excess defense article (EDA) customers. The committee 
understands that if there are no U.S. Government, FMS, or EDA 
claimants, the vehicles will follow approved disposition 
procedures for demilitarization.
    The committee believes there may be some operational value 
in using MRAP vehicles as mobile command posts at echelons 
above brigade. Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of 
Staff of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee 
on Armed Services not later than February 13, 2015, on the 
advisability and feasibility of using MRAP vehicles as part of 
current mobile command post modernization strategies. The 
briefing should include the following:
    (1) An assessment of the potential cost savings, manpower 
requirement reductions, and other associated operations and 
maintenance savings;
    (2) The status and results of vehicle testing to meet the 
goals of mobile command post modernization;
    (3) An assessment of the current status of command vehicle 
configurations, including age of the vehicles, number of 
vehicles required, manpower requirements per command post, and 
guidance on active fielding timelines for replacement vehicles; 
and
    (4) The suitability, cost, and cost avoidance available 
through adaptive reuse of existing vehicles, including the MRAP 
vehicle.

Personal dosimetry for protection in Chemical Biological Radiological 
        Nuclear and Explosive environments

    The committee remains concerned about the increasing 
proliferation of Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and 
Explosive (CBRNE) Weapons of Mass Destruction, and believes 
that maintaining adequate modern protective equipment is of 
critical importance for the safety of U.S. forces in CBRNE 
environments. The committee notes that in regard to 
radiological hazards, accurate dosimetry is critical to the 
forecast of type, severity, and expected time of onset of 
symptoms, information needed to predict a person's fitness for 
duty, and the provision of combat readiness information. The 
committee notes that the Department of the Army last validated 
a requirement for Individual Personal Dosimeters in 1975. 
However, the nuclear and radiological threat environment facing 
the Joint Force has changed dramatically over the past four 
decades and dosimeter technology has also improved. The 
committee is aware of efforts within the Department of Defense 
to develop a Joint Personal Dosimeter (JPD) and validate an 
updated requirement for the JPD. The committee understands that 
the JPD is expected to enter miestone C late in fiscal year 
2015. The committee is concerned, however, that procuring JPDs 
to replace legacy Army systems will not begin until 2020, at 
the earliest. In addition, the committee notes that the Army 
currently has nearly 8,500 legacy systems programmed for 
replacement.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to begin JPD 
procurement to replace legacy Army systems as soon after the 
milestone C decision as the availability of funds will allow. 
Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a briefing to the committee by September 1, 2014, on 
the status of the JPD program and the efforts to validate an 
updated dosimetry requirement for the JPD. The briefing should 
include any recommendations that the Secretary has to begin 
procurement of JPDs earlier than 2020.

Replacement of Enhanced Position Location Reporting system

    The committee notes that the Army currently has a mix of 
brigade combat teams (BCTs) with different tactical 
communications architectures, with most Army BCTs equipped with 
the Blue Force Tracker system. Some Army units, and elements of 
the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force still use the 
Enhanced Position Location Reporting system (EPLRS) for certain 
communications functions. In addition, some allied nations also 
use EPLRS. The committee understands that the Army intends to 
retire the remaining EPLRS systems it uses between fiscal years 
2014-17.
    Overall, the committee supports the Army's plan to 
modernize its tactical communications network. However, the 
committee is concerned about the potential impact the 
retirement that the EPLRS system may have on the Army's ability 
to operate effectively in joint and combined operations. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not 
later than October 1, 2014, on the details of the Army's plan 
to retire the EPLRS system. The briefing should address any 
potential joint or combined operational issues with other 
military services and allied nations that may result from the 
Army retiring the system while it remains in use. In addition, 
the briefing should be coordinated with the appropriate Joint 
Staff offices that oversee requirements in the area of tactical 
communications.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $13.1 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $13.5 billion, an increase of 
$411.6 million, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


EA-18G Stretch

    The committee understands and supports the Department of 
the Navy's requirement for additional airborne electronic 
attack (AEA) aircraft; based on the Department's Congressional 
testimony and formal war fighting campaign analysis. 
Controlling the electromagnetic spectrum is paramount to strike 
capability in future contested environments. The EA-18G Growler 
provides full spectrum capabilities for the Navy and Joint 
Forces. However, the Department insufficiently funded the 
Growler requirement, threatening shutdown of the manufacturing 
line. In concert with the procurement of 5 Growlers in FY15, 
the committee encourages the Chief of Naval Operations to 
utilize the Advanced Procurement funds for F/A-18 E/F aircraft 
in FY14 ($75 million) to extend the production line to a 
minimum production rate of 2 aircraft per month. This extended 
production will ensure an AEA manufacturing line is in place 
for future procurement. The committee directs the Department of 
the Navy to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 
September 1, 2014 on the ability to extend the production line 
to a minimum production rate of 2 aircraft per month. The 
committee urges the Navy to provide the necessary funds to 
fulfill its AEA requirement in Fiscal Year 2016, and if needed, 
beyond.

H-1 engine program upgrade

    The budget request contained $45.0 million for H-1 
upgrades, but included no funding to upgrade the AH-1Z's legacy 
T700-401 engine to the T700-401C configuration.
    The T700-401C engine is used in the Marine Corps' AH-1Z and 
UH-1Y helicopters, has unique parts and provides improved power 
compared to the older T700-401 engine. The committee notes that 
the Marine Corps plans to procure 189 AH-1Z helicopters, and 
understands that 36 of those aircraft are not currently planned 
to be upgraded with T700-401C engines. The committee further 
understands that having 2 different engines for the fleet of 
180 AH-1Zs will result in a reduction of available helicopters 
since the T700-401 engine is becoming increasingly obsolete.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
not later than September 19, 2014, on the Marine Corps' plan 
for either upgrading the 36 AH-1Z helicopters to the T700-401C 
engine configuration, or how the Marine Corps plans to 
incorporate the 36 AH-1Z helicopters with the T700-401 engine 
into the AH-1Z fleet with maintenance and logistic support.

MQ-8 Fire Scout

    The budget request contained $40.7 million for MQ-8 Fire 
Scout procurement.
    The MQ-8 Fire Scout is vertical take-off and landing 
unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV) which provides real-time and 
non-real time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
(ISR) data to tactical users without the use of manned aircraft 
or reliance on limited theater or national assets. The 
committee notes that the budget request contained no funds for 
procurement of MQ-8 Fire Scout VTUAVs, but contained funds for 
procurement of MQ-8 control stations, ancillary equipment, 
training equipment, support equipment, technical support and 
logistics, which are critically needed to outfit the ships on 
which the MQ-8 is deployed.
    While the committee supports the budget request, it is 
disappointed that the Department of the Navy has chosen not to 
fund procurement of aerial vehicles in fiscal year 2015. The 
committee continues to view the MQ-8 VTUAV as a critical ISR 
asset and encourages the Department of the Navy to fully 
execute its fiscal year 2015 budget request, and include the 
procurement of additional MQ-8 VTUAVs in the budget request for 
fiscal year 2016 as well as in subsequent years.

MV-22 carrier onboard delivery

    The committee understands that the Department of the Navy 
has conducted an assessment of whether the MV-22 could be used 
to replace the C-2A Greyhound aircraft currently performing the 
carrier onboard delivery (COD) mission for the Department of 
the Navy. The committee further understands that the MV-22's 
unique combination of speed, range, and vertical agility 
creates possibilities for transforming the way that carrier 
onboard delivery is accomplished.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
not later than October 24, 2014, on the Department of the 
Navy's assessment of the MV-22 to perform the COD mission, any 
analysis of alternatives accomplished to replace the C-2A 
aircraft, key performance parameters required of a C-2A 
replacement aircraft, health and status of the C-2A fleet, and 
the current schedule to procure a C-2A Greyhound replacement 
aircraft.

UH-1 Mobile Aircrew Restraint System retrofits

    The committee understands that aircrew members have been 
ejected from helicopters and seriously injured during crashes 
and hard landings. The committee notes that the Mobile Aircrew 
Restraint System (MARS) is a device developed and designed to 
prevent highly mobile aircrew from being ejected during a crash 
event and to provide fall protection when working near open 
aircraft doors or hatches. The committee encourages the Marine 
Corps to use available funding to procure and install 
additional MARS kits in Marine Corps UH-1Y and other aircraft.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $3.2 
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $3.3 billion, an increase of $63.0 million, 
for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $771.9 
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. 
The committee recommends authorization of $771.9 million, full 
funding of the request, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are 
identified in division D of this Act.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $14.4 
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $15.1 billion, an increase of 
$659.6 million, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Integrated communication systems

    The committee is aware that advances in technology have 
enabled the development and fielding of integrated 
communications systems that combine the capabilities of legacy 
platforms, including Integrated Voice Communications System, 
Tactical Variant Switch and Secure Voice System, into a single 
system. Examples in the U.S. inventory include the U.S. Coast 
Guard's newly fielded National Security and Fast Response 
Cutter program.
    The committee recognizes that the combination of legacy 
systems into one system has the potential to reduce acquisition 
and maintenance costs while simplifying training and providing 
increased operational effectiveness to ship commanders and 
crews. These benefits apply to both retrofit of legacy 
platforms and the outfitting of new platforms.
    The committee encourages the Navy to examine these new 
integrated communications systems, and if proven cost effective 
and beneficial, to consider changing program requirements to 
specify the use of such systems.

Joint High Speed Vessel

    The committee is aware of the premium that the Department 
of Defense places on the ability of U.S. military forces to 
deploy quickly to a full spectrum of engagements. In addition, 
the Department values the ability of U.S. forces to debark and 
embark in a wide range of port environments, from modern to 
austere.
    The committee notes that the Joint High Speed Vessel 
(JHSV), crewed by Military Sealift Command mariners, has 
demonstrated the ability to transport military forces, as well 
as humanitarian relief personnel and materiel, in a manner that 
is responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, and sustainable. 
The USNS Spearhead (JHSV-1) is currently deployed to the U.S. 
6th Fleet area of responsibility.
    The JHSV is designed to transport 600 short tons of 
military cargo 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 
knots in sea state 3. JHSVs support Navy Expeditionary Combat 
Command and riverine forces, theater cooperating missions, 
Seabees, and Marine Corps and Army transportation. The original 
procurement objective for the JHSV was 18 ships. This 
procurement number was lowered to 10 JHSVs as part of the 
budget request for fiscal year 2013.
    The committee notes that the JHSV has the ability to 
support multiple branches of the military services, provide 
high-speed intra-theater sealift, operate in littoral 
environments and austere port environments, and support 
humanitarian and disaster relief activities. The committee also 
notes that the ship's construction line is still operational. 
For these reasons, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
by April 1, 2015, on the operational benefits and cost savings 
associated with continuing to procure JHSVs. The report should 
specifically address the costs and benefits of buying the eight 
additional JHSVs that were originally part of the program.

Littoral Combat Ship

    The committee is concerned about the survivability, 
lethality and endurance of the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship 
(LCS), as noted by the Government Accountability Office and 
others. In February 2014, after reviewing preliminary 
assessments and evaluations of the LCS, the Secretary of 
Defense reduced the total number of LCS seaframes to 32 from 
the planned procurement of 52 and also directed the Navy to 
submit alternate proposals to procure ``a capable and lethal 
small surface combatant generally consistent with the 
capabilities of a frigate.'' The Secretary noted the importance 
of not only presence but capability and power projection as the 
foundation of the Navy's effectiveness and directed the Navy to 
study options to include a completely new design, existing ship 
designs (including the LCS), and a modified LCS. The Chief of 
Naval Operations has directed a Small Surface Combatant Task 
Force to report on these results by July 31, 2014.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees by April 1, 2015, that examines the 
Department of the Navy's study and its implications for the 
procurement of future small surface combatants. This report 
should assess:
    (1) The study's methodologies and key assumptions;
    (2) Any alternate ship design(s) and modifications to the 
Littoral Combat Ship that the Navy evaluated, including 
expectations of cost, schedule, and requirements; and
    (3) The extent to which the study was consistent with the 
approach of a formal analysis of alternatives, as set forth in 
the Department of Defense acquisition policy.

Mobile Landing Platform Afloat Forward Staging Base

    The committee notes that the most recent 30-year 
shipbuilding plan projects a requirement for a third Mobile 
Landing Platform (MLP) Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) 
variant ship in fiscal year 2017. Full funding for the second 
MLP AFSB ship was provided in fiscal year 2014. No advance 
procurement funds for the third MLP AFSB ship are currently 
programmed in either fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016. 
Considering the expanded requirement for the MLP AFSB variant 
ships and the success of the ongoing shipbuilding program, the 
committee is concerned that a 3-year procurement gap between 
ships will increase costs, impact the industrial base, and 
delay delivery of important capabilities. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to explore 
possible approaches to minimize a production break between 
ships, including advance procurement funding, for the third 
AFSB ship.

Moored Training Ship

    The budget request contained $801.7 million in Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy, for the Moored Training Ship program.
    The committee notes that the Moored Training Ship program 
is intended to convert two decommissioned nuclear attack 
submarines into training platforms for nuclear propulsion crew 
members. The committee also notes that this program has 
experienced a $556.8 million cost overrun for the two 
conversions compared to fiscal year 2014 budget projections, 
and that this represents an 34 percent cost increase. The 
committee further notes that $229.7 million of this cost 
increase is included in the fiscal year 2015 budget request. 
While the committee understands that the Moored Training Ship 
program is not a formal acquisition program, the committee 
remains concerned that the 34 percent cost increase would be 
significantly over the critical cost growth threshold for major 
defense acquisition programs, established pursuant to section 
2433, title 10, United States Code, also known as a ``Nunn-
McCurdy breach''. As a result, elsewhere in this Act, the 
committee includes a provision that would require a review to 
be provided to Congress similar to that required for a ``Nunn-
McCurdy breach''.
    The committee recommends $572.0 million, a decrease of 
$229.7 million, in shipbuilding and conversion, Navy, for the 
Moored Training Ship program.

National Defense Sealift Fund

    The committee notes that the Navy is proposing to 
disestablish the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) and, as 
part of this, is proposing to shift funding for new 
construction ships from the NDSF to the Shipbuilding and 
Conversion, Navy (SCN) account. NDSF was created by section 
1077 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1993 (Public Law 102-484) in part to fund new ship construction 
related to Department of Defense sealift ships and was later 
amended to permit the funding of new construction Navy 
auxiliary ships. NDSF is not a procurement account, but a 
revolving fund, and appropriations made available to the fund 
are not executed in the same way as dollars made available to 
SCN. In addition, new-construction ships funded through the 
NDSF, unlike SCN-funded ships, must have certain major 
components manufactured in the United States. The committee is 
concerned that transferring appropriations from NDSF to SCN for 
certain ships could result in potential cost increases as well 
as a reduction in major shipboard components that are 
manufactured in the United States.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to review the proposal to disestablish the NDSF and the budget 
recommendation to appropriate new construction Navy auxiliary 
ships through the SCN account. The Secretary is directed to 
prepare a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2015, detailing how the Navy would proceed if the NDSF 
were disestablished, how the Navy would ensure that there would 
be no cost increases, and how the Navy would plan to maximize 
the use of major shipboard components manufactured in the 
United States in the construction of Department of Defense 
sealift and Navy auxiliary ships.

Shipbuilding warranties and guarantees

    The committee notes that the Government Accountability 
Office recently reported that the Navy continues to accept 
delivery of ships with large numbers of deficiencies. Depending 
on the contract type under which the ships were constructed, 
the Government may share a significant portion of the costs 
associated with fixing these deficiencies. In order to better 
assess the magnitude of this issue, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2015, on the 
efficacy of warranties, guarantees, and other such mechanisms 
that are used in U.S. shipbuilding programs. This report should 
have a particular focus on:
    (1) The extent to which these mechanisms are used in 
Government and commercial shipbuilding programs;
    (2) How the Government assigns responsibility for a defect 
and corrects such problems; and
    (3) The extent to which these mechanisms may reduce the 
Government's exposure to additional costs resulting from 
defective workmanship or equipment.

Surface ship test platform

    The committee notes that the Manta test platform concept 
has been successfully used to evaluate submarine sensors at a 
greatly reduced cost compared to using a full-size submarine 
for test and evaluation. The committee believes that a similar 
surface ship test system could be utilized to test and evaluate 
existing and emerging sonar systems for surface ships. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2015, to include a cost-benefit assessment of 
designing and fabricating a purpose-built surface ship test 
craft that could be utilized to test and evaluate existing and 
emerging sonar systems for surface ships.

                        Other Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $6.0 
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $6.2 billion, an increase of $222.3 million, 
for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of 
this Act.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $983.4 
million for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends 
authorization of $958.2 million, a decrease of $25.1 million, 
for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 System

    The committee supports the potential procurement and rapid 
fielding of the Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 Remote Video 
Viewing Terminal (RVVT) to provide full motion video 
communications and improve tactical processing exploitation and 
dissemination capability. The committee notes that RVVT systems 
allow viewing and exploitation of video and metadata from 
multiple unmanned air, ground, surface, sub-surface systems. 
The committee understands that the Video Scout MC/3 RVVT 
program is intended to be an element of the Marine Corps air 
operations command and control system and is intended to 
increase Marine Corps intelligence, surveillance, 
reconnaissance and direct fire effectiveness through improved 
software capability, two-way communications, and smart antenna 
capability.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $11.5 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $11.4 billion, a decrease of $122.7 
million, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Air National Guard MQ-1/MQ-9 ground-based sense and avoid systems

    The committee acknowledges that the operating configuration 
and equipment for Air National Guard (ANG) MQ-1/9 units, along 
with international and Federal aviation safety requirements, 
may limit the ability to operate in international and domestic 
airspace outside of military restricted areas. MQ-1/9 flight 
operations require specific, International Civil Aviation 
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, or foreign 
authority approval which restricts the aircraft to insufficient 
airspace, and specific or limited routing and altitudes. Such 
restrictions prevent optimal aircrew training and degrade 
operational flexibility during Federal and state missions. 
However, the committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
made significant progress developing ground-based sense and 
avoid (GBSAA) systems, and that the Department of the Army is 
expected to begin GBSAA operations at five locations in fiscal 
year 2015. The committee believes that ANG MQ-1/9 operations 
centers configured with a GBSAA system could improve and 
expedite the assimilation of the MQ-1/9 into operations in both 
international and domestic airspace, and encourages the 
Department of the Air Force to work with the Department of the 
Army to deploy GBSAA systems where appropriate.

Battlefield Airborne Communications Node program

    The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force 
Battlefield Airborne Communication Node (BACN) program has been 
an effective program fielded through rapid acquisition 
authorities to support Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. The BACN program 
currently uses EQ-4B and E-11A aircraft to host the BACN 
communications relay system. The committee is concerned, 
however, that in the absence of continued Overseas Contingency 
Operations funding that the program may be at risk.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the 
Air Force to rapidly transition the BACN program to a base 
budget program of record to ensure that this capability is 
maintained in the Department of the Air Force for the long 
term.

C-130H Avionics Modernization Program and propulsion system upgrades

    The budget request contained $35.9 million for C-130H 
aircraft modifications, but contained no funding for the 
Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) or propulsion system 
upgrades.
    The committee notes that the 2014 Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR) states that the Air Force will maintain 300 
combat-coded C-130H and C-130J aircraft in the tactical airlift 
fleet inventory to support requirements and objectives in 
support of the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. In the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 
(division C of Public Law 113-76), Congress authorized and 
appropriated $47.7 million for AMP and $41.7 million for 
propulsion system upgrades.
    The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of the Air 
Force invested nearly $1.5 billion of taxpayer dollars for 
engineering, manufacturing, development, and testing of the C-
130H AMP program, but has no plans to continue procurement and 
installation of C-130H AMP onto C-130H aircraft. In addition, 
the committee notes that the Secretary has no plans to 
modernize or upgrade the C-130H propulsion system in order to 
increase reliability, capability, fuel efficiency and on-wing 
time of the engine, as well as decrease the overall cost and 
maintenance burden of the current propulsion system. The 
Secretary has not provided the committee with a coherent plan 
for fleet-wide recapitalization of the C-130H fleet or 
explained how the Air Force plans to maintain medium-sized 
intra-theater airlift capacity and capability within both the 
Active and Reserve Components. The committee understands that 
the cost to continue the C-130 AMP program, as compared to the 
costs to individually complete modernization and upgrade 
requirements to keep the C-130H aircraft capable and relevant, 
are roughly the same. However, the committee believes that by 
failing to take actions to modernize the C-130H fleet in the 
very near term with C-130 AMP and propulsion systems upgrades, 
recapitalization costs, mitigation of obsolescence and 
diminishing manufacturing sources costs, or operating and 
sustainment costs will become so cost prohibitive in the future 
that the only course of action available to the Secretary will 
result in the divestiture of the C-130H aircraft from the Air 
Force inventory. Knowing that the majority of the C-130H fleet 
resides within the Reserve Components of the Air Force and that 
the C-130H should remain reliable, capable, and relevant to 
meeting current and future warfighter needs, the committee is 
concerned with the approach that the Secretary has taken with 
regard to the lack of robust modernization and upgrade of C-
130H aircraft, if the aircraft is to have a service-life 
through 2040 as currently planned. Furthermore, C-130 AMP is 
estimated to reduce total ownership costs of the C-130H fleet 
by over 25 percent as compared to not modernizing the aircraft. 
The committee believes that if the Secretary is willing to 
expend at least $3.2 billion for two new presidential aircraft 
to achieve a benefit of a modernized and digital cockpit for 
the aircrew to execute an important mission in a benign flight 
environment, the Secretary should apply similar logic by 
spending significantly less than $3.2 billion for 179 C-130H 
aircraft that would provide a modernized and digital cockpit 
for C-130 aircrews that are required to tactically employ in 
more strenuous and dangerous flight conditions.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision 
that would preserve the $1.5 billion taxpayer investment in the 
C-130 AMP program and would prohibit the Secretary from 
canceling the C-130 AMP program. Further, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Air Force to notify the congressional 
defense committees at any time the combat-coded fleet of C-130H 
and C-130J aircraft decreases below the 300 combat-coded 
aircraft prescribed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. 
Finally, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) and the Secretary of the Air Force to immediately 
obligate authorized appropriations provided in fiscal year 2013 
and fiscal year 2014 to continue C-130 AMP.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $109.7 million, an 
increase of $73.8 million, for C-130H propulsion system 
propeller and engine control upgrades, continued acquisition 
and installation of C-130 AMP kits, and no funding to begin an 
alternative communications, navigation, surveillance and air 
traffic management (CNS/ATM) system program.

F-16 block 40/50 mission training centers

    The budget request contained no funds for the procurement 
of F-16 block 40/50 mission training centers for the Air 
National Guard.
    An F-16 block 40/50 mission training center (MTC) is a 
distributed mission operations-capable flight simulator for F-
16 block 40 and 50 weapon systems. Each MTC includes high-
fidelity simulator cockpits, instructor operator stations, a 
threat server, and briefing and debriefing capability. Each MTC 
is also capable of linking to geographically distributed high-
fidelity combat and combat support training devices, including 
command and control and intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance systems. This capability allows warfighters at 
home station to exercise and train at the operational and 
strategic levels of war as well as to conduct networked unit-
level training.
    The committee notes that F-16 block 40/50 MTCs are 
currently planned in the continental United States for Hill Air 
Force Base (AFB) in Utah, Shaw AFB in South Carolina, and 
Holloman AFB in New Mexico. The committee understands that 
other F-16 block 40 or 50 pilots located in the continental 
United States would need to travel to one of the three MTC 
locations, and believes that locating two additional MTCs in 
the Midwestern United States would save travel costs and make 
the F-16 block 40/50 MTC more available to Active Duty, Reserve 
and Air National Guard F-16 block 40 and 50 pilots, resulting 
in decreased travel costs and enhanced readiness.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the 
Air Force to budget for two additional MTCs which would be 
located at F-16 Air National Guard units in the Midwestern 
United States.

F-16 modernization

    The budget request contained $133.1 million in PE 27133F 
for development of F-16 capabilities, but contained no funds 
for the development of the combat avionics programmed extension 
suite (CAPES), development of the computer modular receiver 
exciter (C-MoRE), or for development of the scalable agile beam 
radar (SABR) upgrade.
    CAPES would upgrade the F-16 blocks 40, 42, 50, and 52 with 
a new active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, a new 
electronic warfare system, an integrated broadcast system, and 
a center display unit. The CAPES upgrade would increase the F-
16's survivability against emerging threats. C-MoRE is a 
reliability improvement demonstration program for the APG-
68(V1) radar of the Air National Guard's F-16 block 30 aircraft 
fleet that would demonstrate an electronic system upgrade while 
retaining the radar's mechanically-scanned array. SABR is an F-
16 radar modernization program that would replace the 
mechanically-scanned array with an AESA radar that would 
enhance F-16 mission capabilities, provide improved electronic 
protection, and provide a three-fold increase in radar 
reliability.
    The committee notes that the budget request proposes the 
cancellation of CAPES. While the committee is disappointed that 
CAPES could not be funded, it understands that difficult 
choices were required due to budget reductions. The committee 
understands that the Department of the Air Force is reviewing 
future F-16 capability upgrade options for fiscal year 2016, 
and believes that the Department of the Air Force may have more 
affordable options to improve the capability of the F-16 fleet. 
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of the Air 
Force to consider both the C-MoRE and the SABR upgrade.
    The committee further notes that the Department of the Air 
Force's 976-aircraft F-16 fleet is 50 percent of the 
Department's fighter force, and that the F-16 block 40, 42, 50, 
and 52 fleets are likely to remain in the Department's 
inventory for the next 15 to 20 years. The committee believes 
that capability upgrades to the F-16 fleet are vitally 
important to address future threats. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees not later than February 
16, 2015, that describes the plan for capability upgrades to 
the F-16 fleet including costs by year and by appropriation, 
risks of not upgrading the F-16 block 40, 42, 50, and 52 fleets 
with the CAPES upgrade, and the effect of the cancellation of 
CAPES on the Air National Guard's F-16 fleet.

High-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

    Over the past 2 years, the committee has supported the 
Global Hawk Block 30 high-altitude unmanned aerial system and 
supports the current Department of the Air Force plan to retain 
the Global Hawk Block 30 for the high-altitude intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) mission. The committee 
notes that the Department of the Air Force has determined that 
Global Hawk operating costs have decreased while the Global 
Hawk Block 30 fleet has flown an increased number of hours 
compared to previous years in support of the combatant 
commanders.
    While the committee was pleased that the Air Force 
requested funding for Global Hawk Block 30 in the budget 
request for fiscal year 2015, the committee is concerned with 
the Department of the Air Force's plan to retire the U-2 fleet 
in fiscal year 2016. While the committee realizes that the 
Department can never fully meet the ISR demand of combatant 
commanders, reasonable and necessary ISR requests appear very 
likely to go unfilled if the current high-altitude airborne ISR 
collection capabilities of the U-2 are terminated. The 
committee notes that section 143 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) 
required the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report on 
all high-altitude ISR systems. The committee has not yet 
received this report and believes that any action to retire, or 
prepare to retire U-2 aircraft would be premature prior to the 
committee's review of the report. To ensure that no actions are 
taken to retire or prepare to retire the U-2 aircraft in fiscal 
year 2015, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a 
provision that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of 
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise 
made available for fiscal year 2015 to make significant changes 
to retire, prepare to retire, or place U-2 aircraft in storage.
    The committee also notes that section 133 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) limits the retirement of U-2 aircraft until equal or 
greater ISR capability is available to commanders of the 
combatant commands, and believes that the Department of the Air 
Force plan to retire the entire fleet of U-2s in fiscal year 
2016 is inconsistent with this provision.
    The committee supports the Department of the Air Force 
efforts to upgrade the Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft to meet 
the requirements of the combatant commanders, but notes that 
this will take several years beyond the planned retirement of 
the U-2. In light of the known gaps, the committee has concerns 
with any plan that will leave the combatant commanders with 
less overall capacity and capability than they have today.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees and the congressional intelligence committees by 
February 16, 2015, that would establish a phased high-altitude 
airborne ISR transition plan which fields capability at the 
same time or before the U-2 aircraft retirement, and which 
would result in equal or greater capability available to the 
commanders of the combatant commands. This plan should include 
the costs, schedule, and identification of fielded high-
altitude ISR capability and capacity. If retirement of the U-2 
would result in decreased capability or capacity for high-
altitude reconnaissance, the report should also include the 
Department of the Air Force plans to mitigate the effects of 
the decreased capability or capacity.

KC-10 Aerial Refueling Aircraft Force Structure

    The committee notes that the President's request for the 
Future Years Defense Program 2016-19 did not take into account 
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) sequestration 
level Department of Defense spending limitations.
    The committee understands that if the spending limitations 
in Public Law 112-25 are imposed on the Department of the Air 
Force beyond fiscal year 2015, then additional reductions in 
critical capabilities and aircraft force structure will likely 
be necessary in order for the Department of the Air Force to 
comply with its share of spending authority. The committee 
understands from briefings and discussions with Air Force 
officials that the KC-10 Stratotanker aircraft could succumb to 
sequestration impacts. The committee is concerned that a 
divestment of a high-demand, low-density aircraft such as the 
KC-10 could have detrimental impacts for the Department of 
Defense in meeting its global reach and global power 
objectives, as it relates to supporting the 2012 Defense 
Strategic Guidance. The committee also notes that the 
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command (CUSTC) has validated 
that the requirement for aerial refueling aircraft capability 
is 567 aircraft. The Department of the Air Force currently has 
only 454 aerial refueling aircraft, resulting in a deficit of 
113 aircraft short of the CUSTC requirement. The Air Force is 
not projected to have 567 aerial refueling tankers in its 
inventory, assuming that no KC-10 or KC-135 are divested, prior 
to delivery of the 112th KC-46 tanker aircraft in the next 
decade.
    Therefore, elsewhere in this title, the committee includes 
a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force 
from using any funds or taking any action during fiscal year 
2015 to divest or transfer, or prepare to divest or transfer, 
any KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft of the Air Force. In 
addition, if the President's request for fiscal year 2016 
proposes to divest the KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft from the 
Department of the Air Force, the committee directs the 
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, in coordination with 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit to the 
congressional defense committees at the time of the fiscal year 
2016 budget submission, an operational risk assessment and 
mitigation strategy that evaluates the military's ability to 
meet the requirements and objectives stipulated in the 
Department's Guidance for Employment of the Force, the Joint 
Strategic Capabilities Plan, and all geographical combatant 
commander steady-state rotational and warfighting surge 
contingency operational planning documents.

KC-46 Aerial Refueling Aircraft program

    The budget request contained $1.6 billion for KC-46 Low-
Rate Initial Production Lot 1 (LRIP 1) procurement of seven 
aircraft.
    The committee notes that the KC-46 program has been 
executing to date without any requirements changes, and 
appreciates the requirements discipline that the Secretary of 
the Air Force has maintained since the beginning of the 
program. The committee supports the KC-46 program and the 
capability the aircraft will bring to the Air Force when it is 
eventually fielded. The committee also realizes that fiscal 
efficiencies can be garnered from the program at this point in 
time without a significant impact to program execution.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $1.4 billion, a 
decrease of $226.1 million, for KC-46 LRIP 1 procurement of six 
aircraft to support higher priorities contained elsewhere in 
this Act. The committee expresses that the Secretary of the Air 
Force should not consider this as punitive action against the 
KC-46 program, and the committee expects the Secretary to 
maintain the same Future Years Defense Program procurement 
quantity of aircraft despite the one aircraft decrease in the 
fiscal year 2015 budget. The committee understands from 
discussions with Air Force program officials that a decrease of 
1 aircraft in LRIP 1 will not have a significant impact to 
program execution and should not hinder the ability for 18 KC-
46 aircraft to be delivered by the contractual required assets 
availability date of the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017.

Spare engine requirements and inventory for F-15E and F-16 aircraft

    The committee is aware that the Air Force has established a 
requirement for 25 additional spare engines for its F-15E and 
F-16 aircraft fleets, as validated by the Propulsion 
Requirements Study (PRS). The committee believes that, given 
the key role that the F-15 and F-16 aircraft will play in 
meeting fighter requirements until the F-35 aircraft is fielded 
in sufficient numbers, the extension of the F-15 and F-16 
fleets will require a reliable base of spare engines. The 
committee is concerned, however, that while the Department of 
the Air Force has identified this requirement, it has not yet 
taken action to fulfill it. In addition, the committee 
understands that the F-100 production line is currently planned 
to terminate at the end of 2016 based on current orders.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 
Services by October 1, 2014, which details the Department of 
the Air Force's plan to address the unfulfilled requirement for 
F-15 and F-16 spare engines.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $677.4 
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $677.4 million, full funding of the 
request, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.7 
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $4.8 billion, an increase of $132.0 
million, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $16.6 
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $16.5 billion, a decrease of $64.0 
million, for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division 
D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Air Force explosive ordnance disposal unmanned systems repairs and 
        upgrades

    The committee notes that over the past 10 years, the 
Department of the Air Force has invested in hundreds of 
unmanned systems to support critical explosive ordnance 
disposal (EOD) missions. The committee also notes that many of 
these systems are in need of repair and upgrade after being 
used extensively in deployed environments. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 
establish a formal acquisition program for fiscal year 2016 to 
properly facilitate and manage the repair, maintenance, and 
upgrade of the Department of the Air Force's EOD unmanned 
systems.

Aircraft tug vehicles

    The committee supports the Air Force's goal to develop 
advanced power and energy technologies that promote energy 
efficiency and allow the force to meet mission objectives. To 
this end, the committee supports further study of the battery 
powered towbarless tow vehicles. The committee is aware that in 
a preliminary Air Force study, a battery powered towbarless tow 
vehicle demonstrated an ability to complete the same task as 
current aircraft tow vehicles using less energy while saving 
money and creating a safer work environment. The committee 
believes that if further studies confirm initial assessments of 
this capability, the Air Force should explore replacing 
additional existing aircraft tow vehicles with the new electric 
towbarless alternatives.

Beyond line of sight command and control for intelligence, 
        surveillance, and reconnaissance systems

    The committee is encouraged by the advances in distribution 
of full motion video and the bridging of disparate radio wave 
forms for enhanced interoperability as part of the Joint Aerial 
Layered Network. The committee recognizes that the fielding of 
beyond line of sight command and control and associated 
tactical pods in support of intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance will provide valuable capabilities in response 
to stated urgent combatant commander requirements.
    Yet, the committee is concerned that a joint capability, 
called Tactical Airborne Communications Pod (TACPod) was 
developed using Air Force Quick Reaction Capability funding and 
processes, but is not being used across the military services. 
Rather than deploying the capability to meet combatant 
commander validated requirements, TACPod is instead being 
stored indefinitely. Separately, the committee is concerned 
that the Air Force is procuring an entirely different 
capability to meet essentially the same requirements that 
TACPod was originally developed to fulfill.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy and the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, to provide a briefing to the committee by November 
1, 2014, on the existing and planned activities in support of 
beyond line of sight command and control for intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.

Emergency Airfield Lighting System

    The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force 
awarded a small-business set-aside contract to develop the 
Emergency Airfield Light System II (EALS II), but subsequently 
canceled the program after a successful 2013 operational 
utility evaluation where only minor deficiencies were found. 
The committee believes that the capability of the EALS II will 
be a lasting requirement and is concerned that the costs 
associated with a new development effort for a system with 
comparable requirements to EALS II may have significant 
schedule and cost risks. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House 
Committee on Armed Services not later than July 30, 2014, on 
the decision not to proceed with EALS II production. The 
briefing should include the Air Force's current plan to meet 
requirements for emergency airfield lighting and the projected 
funding required through fiscal year 2019.

Joint threat emitter procurement

    The budget request contained $26.6 million in other 
procurement, Air Force, for combat training range equipment. Of 
this amount, $13.5 million was requested for procurement of one 
joint threat emitter (JTE).
    The committee is aware of the importance of maintaining the 
proficiency of combat aircrews and their capability to respond 
to, survive and defeat the most advanced enemy air defenses 
they could encounter on any current battlefield. The committee 
is also aware that the JTE is intended to provide realistic 
electronic warfare training that can simulate the multiple 
threat scenarios of a hostile integrated air defense system. In 
addition, while older emitters are employed at numerous 
training ranges, the committee notes that they mostly simulate 
antiquated Soviet air defense systems designed during the Cold 
War. The committee believes that these older legacy emitters 
may not be adequate to train aircrews expected to challenge the 
most sophisticated enemy systems, such as the SA-20, SA-23 or 
HQ-9 surface-to-air missile systems. Given the importance of 
the JTE, the committee is concerned that the Air Force Budget 
request only includes funding to procure one JTE in fiscal year 
2015. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to evaluate options for potentially accelerating the 
production and fielding of JTE units and brief the committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives on the program by January 31, 2015.
    The committee recommends $26.6 million, the full amount 
requested, for combat training range equipment.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.2 
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends 
authorization of $4.4 billion, an increase of $172.1 million, 
for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and U.S.-based coproduction

    The budget request contained $176.0 million in PE 28866C 
for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system.
    The committee has supported the Iron Dome Weapons System 
since the State of Israel's first request for U.S. funding in 
fiscal year 2011. Since the first authorization of Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) funding, U.S. taxpayers have provided 
$720.0 million for the program. The committee is aware that the 
Israeli requirement may necessitate up to $175.0 million in 
addition to the $176.0 million contained in the President's 
request.
    The committee has received ``The Agreement Between the 
Department of Defense of the United States of America and the 
Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel Concerning Iron Dome 
Defense System Procurement,'' signed on March 5, 2014. The 
committee is pleased that this agreement resolves many details 
of U.S. coproduction of Iron Dome components and interceptors 
in the United States. The committee is aware that MDA and the 
Israeli Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) have entered into 
an international agreement to govern how the United States 
funds up to $680 million between fiscal years 2012-15 for Iron 
Dome. The committee is concerned that the agreement does not 
cover the full amount it recommends for fiscal year 2015. Given 
the significant U.S. taxpayer investment in this system, the 
committee believes that coproduction of parts and components 
should be done in a manner that will maximize U.S. industry 
participation in interceptor and battery deliveries for 
Israel's defense needs. The committee recommends $351.0 
million, an increase of $175.0 million, in PE 28866C for the 
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system.
    However, the committee expects that the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency will not obligate or expend $175.0 million of 
that amount, and instead hold it in reserve and disburse it 
incrementally until receipt and acceptance by the MDA of 
sufficiently detailed cost and schedule justification from the 
Government of Israel. Such detailed cost and schedule 
justification must include:
    (1) A timeline for Iron Dome expenditure of funds above the 
President's request for the fiscal year for which the funds 
were appropriated or made available;
    (2) Copies of signed and ratified contracts, subcontracts, 
and teaming arrangements between Israeli and U.S. industry for 
all Iron Dome coproduction efforts;
    (3) Delivery to MDA of all technical data packages as 
accepted by U.S. industry suppliers for coproduction; and
    (4) A common cost model of Iron Dome components, to be 
jointly developed and agreed upon by MDA and IMDO that 
includes: recurring and non-recurring engineering costs; 
estimates for future buys and actual costs beginning with 
fiscal year 2013; the required quantities for all components 
through fiscal year 2019; and component lead-times and delivery 
schedules.
    Additionally, the committee expects the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency will ensure that: Iron Dome operational data has 
been provided per previous commitments; this additional funding 
be applied to the work share percentage for fiscal year 2015 
funding between U.S. and Israeli industry as proscribed under 
the recently signed Iron Dome Procurement Agreement; and that 
the additional funds are required to meet Israeli defense 
needs. Any funds found to be in excess of Israel's justified 
and documented needs during fiscal year 2015 may be transferred 
by the MDA to appropriations available for the procurement of 
weapons and equipment according to priority needs.
    The committee also believes that if there is a request for 
Iron Dome funding for fiscal year 2016, the Director, Missile 
Defense must establish for the committee how those funds will 
resolve details and agreements needed for U.S.-based 
coproduction of all-up-rounds and cover the export of Iron Dome 
technology to U.S. and Israeli allies, including coproduction 
of parts, components, and all-up-rounds of those exports.
    The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency, 
in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees not later than October 1, 
2014, on the information provided in the required detailed cost 
and schedule justification, including the views of the Director 
and the Under Secretary on its sufficiency.
    Further, the committee directs the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional 
defense committees not less than once each quarter in fiscal 
year 2015, starting October 1, 2014, on the progress in 
achieving the requirements established in ``The Agreement 
Between the Department of Defense of the United States of 
America and the Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel 
Concerning Iron Dome Defense System Procurement.''

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


              Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize appropriations for procurement 
at the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this 
Act.

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs


     Section 111--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Airborne 
                      Reconnaissance Low Aircraft

    This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of 
funds for the communications intelligence subsystem of the 
airborne reconnaissance low program until the Secretary of the 
Army submits a report to the congressional defense committees 
on the plan to integrate such subsystem into the signals 
intelligence modernization plan of the Army.

Section 112--Plan on Modernization of UH-60A Aircraft of Army National 
                                 Guard

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
submit a plan to the congressional defense committees on the 
Army's strategy to modernize the National Guard's fleet of UH-
60A Black Hawk helicopters.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs


  Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tomahawk Block IV 
                                Missiles

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into a multiyear contract for up to 5 years beginning in 
fiscal year 2015, pending submission to Congress of the 
certification requirements of section 2306b, title 10, United 
States Code, not later than 45 days prior to entering into the 
multiyear procurement contract.

     Section 122--Construction of San Antonio Class Amphibious Ship

    This section would provide the Secretary of the Navy 
incremental funding authority to enter into a contract for the 
ship construction of a San Antonio class amphibious ship.

    Section 123--Additional Oversight Requirements for the Undersea 
 Mobility Acquisition Program of the United States Special Operations 
                                Command

    This section would modify the current oversight 
requirements for the undersea mobility acquisition program of 
U.S. Special Operations Command, and require the Secretary of 
the Navy to review a transition plan for the undersea mobility 
capabilities developed by the Commander, U.S. Special 
Operations Command. This section would also repeal section 144 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81).

 Section 124--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Moored Training 
                              Ship Program

    This section would limit the obligation to no more than 80 
percent of the fiscal year 2015 shipbuilding and conversion, 
Navy funding for the Moored Training Ship program until certain 
certifications and reviews regarding requirements and cost 
growth are provided to the congressional defense committees.

 Section 125--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Mission Modules 
                        for Littoral Combat Ship

    This section would limit fiscal year 2015 funds for the 
procurement of additional mission modules for the Littoral 
Combat Ship program until the Secretary of the Navy submits 
milestone B program goals for cost, schedule, and performance 
for each mission module increment, and certification by the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation that sufficient 
mission modules are available to perform all necessary 
operational testing.

   Section 126--Extension of Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
                          Littoral Combat Ship

    This section would amend section 124 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) and extend the funds limitation to include funds authorized 
to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available for 
fiscal year 2015. This section would therefore prohibit the 
expenditure of funds associated with Littoral Combat Ship 25 
and 26 until the Secretary of the Navy submits a report of the 
Littoral Combat Ship program that was requested in section 124 
of Public Law 113-66.

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs


 Section 131--Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of Avionics 
                Modernization Program for C-130 Aircraft

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force 
from modifying or canceling the C-130 Avionics Modernization 
Program in fiscal year 2015 and would also prohibit the 
Secretary from beginning an alternative C-130H modernization 
program (except for developing and installing an Automatic 
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast system modification for the C-
130H). The committee is concerned that any alternative 
modernization program the Air Force would pursue would offer 
less capability than the program of record.
    This section would also limit the funds authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 
year 2015 for operation and maintenance of the Office of the 
Secretary of the Air Force to not more than 75 percent until a 
period of 15 days has elapsed following the date on which the 
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees 
that the Secretary has obligated the funds authorized to the 
appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal years prior 
to fiscal year 2015 for the avionics modernization program of 
record for C-130 aircraft.

 Section 132--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Retirement of A-
                              10 Aircraft

    This section would prohibit funds authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 
year 2015 for the Department of Defense to be obligated or 
expended to retire A-10 aircraft. This section would also 
require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct 
a study evaluating the platforms of the Air Force used, as of 
the date of the study, to conduct close air support missions, 
and submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, which would include the cost per airframe carrying out the 
close air support missions, the capabilities of each platform 
evaluated under such study, and a determination by the 
Comptroller General with respect to whether such airframes 
other than A-10 aircraft are able to successfully carry out 
such close air support missions.

Section 133--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of U-2 
                                Aircraft

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise 
made available for fiscal year 2015 to make significant changes 
to retire, prepare to retire, or place U-2 aircraft in storage.

  Section 134--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment or 
                       Transfer of KC-10 Aircraft

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force 
from using any funds or taking any action during fiscal year 
2015 to divest or transfer, or prepare to divest or transfer, 
any KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft of the Air Force.

Section 135--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment of E-3 
              Airborne Warning and Control System Aircraft

    This section would limit funds authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 
year 2015 for the Department of Defense to be obligated or 
expended to divest more than four E-3 airborne warning and 
control system aircraft, or disestablish any units of the 
active or reserve components associated with such aircraft, 
until a period of 15 days has elapsed following the date on 
which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the 
congressional defense committees a report consisting of a 
certification that the Secretary is able to meet all priority 
requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands 
relating to such aircraft with a planned force of 24 such 
aircraft and a detailed explanation how the Secretary will meet 
such requirements with such planned force.

       Subtitle E--Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters


 Section 141--Comptroller General Report on F-35 Aircraft Acquisition 
                                Program

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review the F-35 acquisition program, and to 
submit a report not later than April 15, 2015, and each year 
thereafter until the F-35 acquisition program enters full rate 
production. Each report would include the extent to which the 
F-35 aircraft acquisition program is meeting cost, schedule and 
performance goals; the progress and results of developmental 
and operational testing; the progress of the procurement and 
manufacturing of the F-35 aircraft; and an assessment of any 
plans or efforts of the Secretary of Defense to improve the 
efficiency of the procurement and manufacturing of the F-35 
aircraft.

         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $63.5 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation. This represents a $600.0 
million increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year 
2015.
    The committee recommends $63.8 billion, an increase of 
$257.5 million to the budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
research, development, test, and evaluation program are 
identified in division D of this Act.

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $6.6 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Army. The committee 
recommends $6.6 billion, a decrease of $13.9 million to the 
budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army program are 
identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Active protective system

    The budget request contained $53.7 million in PE 63005A for 
combat vehicle and automotive advance technology, which 
includes funding for Active Protection System (APS) research 
and development.
    The committee is encouraged that funding for APS research 
and development was included in the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request. In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, the committee noted that a lack of investment could 
soon create a critical capability gap for Army combat vehicles 
due to the rapid proliferation of advanced anti-tank guided 
missiles and next-generation rocket propelled grenades. The 
committee notes that there are numerous types of APS available, 
including some that have already been fielded on operational 
vehicles in other countries and have performed well in recent 
demonstrations. It is crucial the Army keeps momentum going in 
this important effort; therefore, the committee encourages the 
Army to establish a program of record to develop, procure and 
equip required combat vehicles with APS as soon as feasible 
based on availability of funding.
    The committee recommends $53.7 million, the full amount 
requested, in PE 63005A for combat vehicle and automotive 
advance technology.

Applied Communication Information Network

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
been conducting research on a suite of capabilities that 
provides real time information on vessels of interest in a 
riverine environment. The objective of this research, which is 
part of the Applied Communication Information Network (ACIN), 
is to integrate Government off-the-Shelf, Commercial off-the-
Shelf and emerging technologies to provide integrated command, 
control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance 
and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities in a scalable, low-
risk, cost-effective and user-friendly system. The committee 
recognizes the need for a laboratory and test-bed capabilities 
with proven management and systems administration to support 
such efforts. The committee is aware that ACIN has demonstrated 
expertise in this area with a track record of transitioning its 
research into operational use. The committee encourages 
continued support for the ACIN to advance fielding of critical 
C4ISR technologies to military users in the riverine 
environment.

Combat feeding research and development

    The budget request contained $10.9 million across several 
Army program elements for research and development of combat 
feeding technologies.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense Combat 
Feeding Research and Engineering Program (CFREP) is the only 
program within the Department of Defense that engages in 
research and development, to include high-risk, high payoff 
science and technology, for combat rations, field food service 
equipment and combat feeding systems to support the Army, Navy, 
Marine Corps, Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency, and National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    The committee is aware the budget request for fiscal year 
2015 reflects a significant reduction when compared to 
projections for fiscal year 2015 in last year's budget request. 
The committee is concerned that the proposed reductions could 
have a disproportionate impact on CFREP's ability to perform 
its mission. The committee understands the reduced funding 
level may decrease CFREP's ability to support requirements of 
future operating environments; develop innovative products that 
improve warfighter physical and cognitive performance; supply 
the military services with world-class products leading to an 
increasing dependence on industry that has no incentive to 
innovate due to lack of a market; contribute to reducing cost 
to the services over the long-term due to increasingly 
inefficient supply chains and reliance on commercial solutions. 
In developing its fiscal year 2016 budget, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of the Army to increase funding for 
combat feeding technology projects.
    The committee recommends $16.3 million, an increase of $5.4 
million, for Army combat feeding research and development.

Combat identification for dismounted users

    The committee recognizes the importance of developing and 
deploying combat identification systems for dismounted users 
that utilize both radio frequency and infrared laser 
technologies to provide an all-weather, day-night, high-
reliability individual kit to address specific anti-fratricide 
factors in dismounted operations. The committee is concerned 
that ``friendly fire'' incidents continue to be a source of 
casualties between U.S. forces, as well as partners and allies, 
due to the lack of such capabilities. The committee believes 
such capabilities exist and have been successfully 
demonstrated, and encourages the Department of Defense to 
proceed with further testing and evaluation to determine if 
these capabilities can be more widely fielded.

Dual mode tactical missiles

    The committee continues to recommend that the Department of 
Defense pursue an all-weather, moving target-capable tactical 
missile that could be integrated on different military 
platforms. While the committee understands that certain 
capabilities, such as a single mode seeker missile, are 
appropriate when prosecuting certain targets, the committee is 
concerned that current capabilities may have difficulties 
defeating other targets in a cost-efficient and precise manner, 
while also ensuring low collateral damage.
    The committee is particularly interested in capabilities to 
counter high-speed, erratically maneuvering targets on land and 
at sea, as well as understanding how dual mode missiles could 
be used in counterterrorism (CT) operations. The committee 
notes the use of dual mode missiles, to include allied missile 
programs, could potentially close existing operational gaps, 
reduce the risk of collateral damage, and may result in cost 
savings relative to current Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 
used as part of current direct action CT operations. The 
committee is aware of the recent integration and successful 
testing of a fully operational dual mode missile off an MQ-9 
Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle system for the United Kingdom 
Ministry of Defense. The committee notes the Royal Air Force 
has used this dual mode missile extensively in overseas 
contingency operations and have reported positive feedback. 
Further, the committee is also aware that the Secretary of the 
Navy is funding an initial analysis of dual mode missile 
integration on the F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft, and that 
initial feedback has been positive.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to 
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by 
February 15, 2015, on the capabilities of existing U.S. and 
allied missile programs which utilize dual mode seeker 
technology. The briefing should also include an assessment of 
the applicability of current dual-mode missiles within the 
Nation's counterterrorism efforts, including against high-
speed, rapidly moving targets on land and sea, as well as an 
update of U.S. and allied efforts to integrate dual-mode 
missile technologies onto the MQ-9 Reaper weapon system.

Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology

    The committee is aware that the budget request for 
research, development test, and evaluation, Army included PE 
63008A, ``Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology.'' According 
to the budget justification documents, this program element 
``matures and demonstrates software, algorithms and services 
that focus on tactical cyber situational awareness, autonomous 
network defense, cross domain security and encryption 
solutions.'' The committee believes that the title for this 
program element is misleading and does not adequately describe 
or justify the way these funds are used. The committee urges 
the Army to appropriately title this program element in future 
budget submissions to properly identify the scope of work being 
conducted.

Expeditionary communications

    The committee understands that expeditionary missions, such 
as non-combatant evacuation operations or humanitarian 
assistance, present unique communication challenges as they can 
often take place in austere environments where little or no 
communications infrastructure remains intact. Moreover, the 
U.S. military often has a distinct requirement to communicate 
with other elements of the U.S. Government, non-governmental 
organizations, and host nation officials, and this must be 
facilitated with sufficient capability to do so effectively and 
securely. As the Department of Defense works to improve its 
expeditionary communications infrastructure, the committee 
urges the Department to explore the availability of secure, 
commercial cellular wireless networks that have been 
successfully deployed by the Department in tactical theaters of 
operation.

Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment

    The committee notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 
113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directed the Secretary of 
the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees by February 15, 2014, evaluating the potential 
utility of fabric-based solutions to address soldier and 
civilian personnel exposure to inhaled hazards, including sand, 
dust, smoke, and pollutants, such as diesel exhaust and lead. 
The committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Army has 
failed to deliver this report to the congressional defense 
committees. Further, the committee understands that no 
substantive evaluation of potential protective technologies has 
taken place. The committee has been informed by the Program 
Executive Office-Soldier that the proper entity to evaluate 
fabric-based solutions is the U.S. Army Natick Soldier 
Research, Development, and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) in 
Natick, Massachusetts. The committee understands that NSRDEC 
has technical and scientific expertise in the areas of 
environmental protection, protective clothing, multi-functional 
textiles, materials, and fibers.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than December 1, 2014, containing NSRDEC's evaluation of 
the capabilities of known fabric-based solutions to mitigate 
soldier exposure to the inhalation of sand, dust, smoke, and 
pollutants.

High explosive guided mortar program

    The budget request contained no funding for the High 
Explosive Guided Mortar (HEGM) program. The budget request 
contained no funding for the XM395 Accelerated Precision Mortar 
Initiative (APMI).
    The APMI round is a precision guided 120mm mortar munition 
that was procured to address an operational need from forces in 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The committee notes the Army 
procured 5,480 APMI rounds to address the operational need, and 
that to date, approximately 2,328 have been fielded in OEF, and 
the remaining are part of the war reserve inventory. The 
committee notes the Army has chosen not to transition this 
program to an official program of record, and that the Army 
does not anticipate a requirement to procure additional APMI 
rounds. The committee understands that based on positive 
feedback from OEF on APMI performance, the Army is moving 
forward with the HEGM program and anticipates starting the 
program in fiscal year 2016, with fielding beginning around 
2022. Based on information provided by the Army, the committee 
understands HEGM would provide for increased capabilities over 
those demonstrated by APMI.
    Given the continued constrained budget environment, the 
committee expects the military services to maximize research 
and development funding, reduce procurement costs, and when 
possible develop joint requirements, instead of resourcing 
duplicative, stand-alone programs. The committee would expect 
the Army to conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives 
that would include the APMI and Marine Corps precision extended 
range munition program before initiating a next generation 
precision guided mortar program.

High Performance Computing Modernization program

    The committee is aware that the Army Corps of Engineers 
serves as executive agent for the Department of Defense High 
Performance Computing Modernization (HPCM) program, a 
responsibility that devolved from the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense in fiscal year 2012. The purpose of this program is 
to apply supercomputing resources to solve Department of 
Defense problems in research, development, test, and 
evaluation, and acquisition engineering. To meet this mission, 
the HPCM program must maintain state-of-the-art supercomputing 
resource centers, as well as software engineering talent to 
maintain modern and secure software applications for the user 
community.
    The committee is also aware that the HPCM program has been 
operating at a level not currently supported by the level of 
funding requested in the President's request. The committee is 
concerned that the shortfall has only been mitigated by the 
repeated intervention of Congress to get the program to a 
sustainable level. The committee believes that the Department 
should conduct a thorough assessment of the program to ensure 
future budget requests are sufficient to right-size the budget 
to the needed infrastructure and support capabilities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, 
in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Research and Engineering, to review the HPCM program, and to 
submit a report on the findings to the congressional defense 
committees not later than September 30, 2014. The review should 
examine the following:
    (1) Identify the capabilities that will be lost and the 
impact on Department if the HPCMP is funded at the budget 
request for fiscal year 2015 level throughout the Future Years 
Defense Program (FYDP);
    (2) Identify the resources reduced, including manpower, in 
order to operate at the budget request for fiscal year 2015 
level throughout the FYDP; and
    (3) A strategy for closing the gap between the budget 
requests and the fiscal year 2012 HPCMP funding level 
throughout the FYDP.

Improved Turbine Engine Program

    The committee continues to support the budget request for 
the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP). ITEP is a 
competitive acquisition that is based on current research 
efforts and is designed to develop a more fuel efficient and 
powerful engine for the current Black Hawk and Apache 
helicopter fleets. The committee notes the benefits of improved 
fuel efficiencies through lower, specific fuel consumption that 
ITEP brings to the battlefield. In addition, the committee 
encourages the Army to consider maintenance and sustainment 
costs for ITEP and specifically, how these calculations would 
drive affordability of the program.
    The committee believes it is important that ITEP transition 
from Science and Technology to the Preliminary Design phase of 
Engineering and Manufacturing Development as soon as possible. 
Providing adequate funding for ITEP to maintain or accelerate 
the schedule will reduce risk and ensure continued program 
advancement and success. The committee encourages the Army to 
maintain its schedule to control development and program costs, 
mitigate technical risk, validate performance, and ensure the 
warfighter receives the best possible solution.
    The committee, however, believes that the ITEP Business 
Case Analysis and Cost Estimate may be outdated and is 
concerned that it might not sufficiently factor in the total 
fuel savings or maintenance and logistics cost savings 
associated with the engine. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Army to brief the House Committee on Armed 
Services by December 1, 2014, on a path to update the study.

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program

    The budget request contained $83.8 million in PE 65450A for 
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) research and development.
    The committee continues to support the JAGM program based 
on the need for a replacement to the Hellfire missile program 
that provides an all-weather, long-range moving target 
capability. In addition, the continuation of the JAGM program 
would help sustain the tactical missile industrial base. 
Tactical missile technology remains an area of asymmetric 
advantage and technological superiority for the United States 
that the committee believes must be retained.
    The committee has received the briefing as required in the 
committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The committee 
notes the Army continues to pursue a ``dual mode'' seeker as 
part of Increment 1 of the new acquisition strategy, with a 
milestone B decision planned in fiscal year 2015. From this 
briefing, the committee also understands the JAGM program 
completed a successful Critical Design Review in January 2014, 
and the program remains on cost, schedule and performance. The 
committee notes there will be a full and open competition for 
the engineering and manufacturing development contract award. 
The committee acknowledges that Army funding is constrained by 
the current budget environment, however, given current 
technology readiness levels as demonstrated during the 
technology development phase, the committee encourages 
acceleration of the Increment I program.
    The committee recommends $83.8 million, the full amount 
requested, in PE 65450A for continued JAGM research and 
development.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

    The budget request contained $45.7 million in PE 65812A, 
and $11.5 million in PE 65812M to complete the engineering and 
manufacturing development phase of the Joint Light Tactical 
Vehicle (JLTV) program. The budget request also contained 
$164.6 million in Other Procurement, Army, and $7.5 million in 
Procurement, Marine Corps for the procurement of 183 low-rate 
initial production JLTVs.
    The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) will complement the 
current fleet of Up-Armor high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled 
vehicles and would provide improved protection, payload, and 
performance to the Army's and the Marine Corps' light tactical 
wheeled vehicle fleets.
    The committee notes the budget request would mark the first 
year of procurement for JLTV, and would also complete limited 
user testing. The committee supports the JLTV program and 
recognizes that the program remains on schedule despite the 
impacts resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public 
Law 112-25), and understands a milestone C decision is 
scheduled for June 2015. The committee notes that JLTV does not 
have any significant technology issues that would preclude 
development. Therefore, the committee expects the program to 
remain on schedule. The committee notes the JLTV program is the 
only new tactical wheeled vehicle modernization program for the 
foreseeable future, and the committee believes the JLTV program 
will be critical for maintaining the viability of the 
industrial base.
    The committee recommends $45.7 million in PE 65812A, $11.5 
million in PE 65812M, and elsewhere in this report, $164.6 
million in Other Procurement, Army, and $7.5 million in 
Procurement, Marine Corps, the full amount of the total 
request, for the JLTV program.

Lightweight segmented tactical ladders

    The committee acknowledges that improved mobility of the 
soldier increases safety and improves mission capability. The 
committee is aware that the tactical ladder is an important 
piece of equipment that is critical to many missions throughout 
the world. The committee understands that current tactical 
ladder systems are made from metal or fiberglass, weigh 40 
pounds or more, and are often cumbersome to transport, 
especially on foot. The committee is also aware there may be 
commercially available, lightweight carbon fiber composite 
ladders that reduce ladder weight load to 11 pounds or less, 
while maintaining the strength and durability of heavier 
ladders. The committee also notes that current telescoping and 
foldout tactical ladders require a single soldier to carry the 
entire load, whereas a segmented ladder provides the option for 
weight distribution among members of a group to improve 
portability.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
not later than December 31, 2014, on the potential benefits of 
lightweight segmented tactical ladders. The briefing should 
include an overview of the current military inventory and a 
review of available carbon fiber commercial ladder options that 
may reduce weight and provide additional flexibility to 
soldiers.

Non-invasive medical diagnostic tools

    The committee recognizes the value in developing high-
fidelity medical instruments to provide diagnostic analysis 
through non-invasive means. The committee believes that such 
tools lend themselves to use in austere environments like 
combat zones, natural and civil disasters, and settings where 
rapid and accurate diagnostic data must be obtained in an 
unsettled, often chaotic, environment where standard clinical 
support may be lacking. The committee encourages the Department 
of Defense to explore development of such non-invasive medical 
diagnostic tools for use in austere and highly unstable 
environments.

Operational testing of High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator

    The committee believes that the High Energy Laser Mobile 
Demonstrator (HEL-MD) is of great value to the Army and to the 
Department of Defense's efforts to develop directed energy 
weapons. The committee is concerned that the Army does not have 
a clear plan for the future of the HEL-MD. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
briefing on the plan for the future of the HEL-MD to the House 
Armed Services Committee by December 1, 2014. This plan shall 
include an analysis on the feasibility of operational testing 
of the HEL-MD, including the possibility of operational testing 
of the HEL-MD in international locations such as Israel.

Rotorcraft hostile fire protection

    The committee is encouraged by the continued effort of the 
Army and other military services to develop a hostile fire 
detection and defeat system that will function in the harsh 
environments produced by rotorcraft operations. In the past, 
hostile fire detection systems for rotorcraft have been limited 
to acoustic-based technologies even though rotor noise, wind 
noise and echoing off of topography restricts the system's 
accuracy. The committee wants to ensure that the Army is 
considering advanced technologies, like radar, that will 
pinpoint and integrate the location of hostile fire into the 
aircraft's defeat systems for engagement of incoming 
projectiles. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees by February 9, 2015, that details the Army's efforts 
to potentially implement a radar, ultraviolet and infrared 
based hostile fire detection and defeat system into existing 
rotorcraft platforms.

Small Airborne Networking Radio program

    The budget request contained no funding for the Small 
Airborne Networking Radio (SANR).
    The committee is aware that the Army has deferred the SANR 
program indefinitely while moving forward with the less 
ambitious Small Airborne Link-16 Terminal. The committee is 
concerned regarding the lack of information from the Army on 
the future of the SANR program and believes that full 
integration of the soldier radio waveform, originally intended 
to be provided by the SANR program, into Army airborne 
platforms will be essential in the future.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
not later than December 1, 2014, with an update on the status 
of the SANR program.

Soldier protection system and weight reduction for personnel protection 
        equipment

    The budget request contained $27.8 million in PE 64601A for 
Infantry Support Weapons. Of this amount, $7.5 million supports 
the continued development of the Army's Soldier Protection 
System (SPS). Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes 
that the budget request contained $63.1 million in Operations 
and Maintenance, Army for the initial procurement of SPS 
components.
    The SPS provides a lighter weight modular, scalable 
integrated system of mission tailorable personnel protection 
equipment (PPE) while also improving the level of mobility, 
form, fit, and function for both male and female soldiers. The 
committee is aware the SPS includes subsystems such as 
protection for the head, eyes, extremities, torso, and other 
integrated sensor packages. The committee notes a milestone C 
decision is expected in fiscal year 2015. The committee notes 
the Army would field two to three brigade combat team sets per 
year and has programmed approximately $575.0 million for SPS 
across the Future Years Defense Program. While the committee 
commends the Army on their SPS effort, the committee encourages 
the Army to provide enough funding to maintain two vendors for 
competitive purposes, and also encourages the accelerated 
fielding of SPS to all soldiers.
    The committee has long championed the importance of 
reducing the weight of current body armor and personnel 
protection equipment systems, as well as stressing the critical 
need for robust investment in weight reduction initiatives, 
along with technology insertions to improve performance and 
survivability. The committee believes current body armor 
systems provide outstanding protection to the warfighter, but 
their weight contributes to the over-burden issue and decline 
in performance. The committee understands that body armor 
system weights have remained relatively constant over the last 
decade in spite of advances in materials technologies because 
protection levels have also increased in response to threats.
    The committee commends the Army for addressing this 
challenge by shifting from a more discrete component level 
development strategy to a more systems engineering and system 
level approach to body armor and PPE development as a means to 
improve soldier capabilities. The committee believes the 
Department must maintain significant investment in near-term 
solutions that can effectively reduce the weight of body armor, 
while also investing in the development of revolutionary new 
material technologies that could provide for significant 
breakthroughs in weight and performance.
    The committee recommends $7.5 million in PE 64601A for SPS, 
and elsewhere in this report recommends $63.1 million for the 
procurement and fielding of SPS, the full amount of the budget 
request.

Stryker Vehicle Survivability Upgrades

    The committee supports efforts to increase the protection 
level of Army Stryker vehicles and believes there is a need for 
additional innovation and competition within the program. In 
particular, the committee continues to support the ongoing 
Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, Stryker 
Vehicle Survivability Systems Integration Study program. The 
committee notes that this program has performed several 
integration studies reviewing the potential for incorporating 
occupant-centric survivability technologies onto Stryker 
vehicles. In addition, the committee understands that these 
kit-based solutions may potentially be installed during depot 
reset or in the field, and could enhance Stryker survivability 
and mobility across the fleet. The committee also notes that 
there are two variants of the Stryker vehicle, the Mobile Gun 
System (MGS) and the NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV), that 
do not have the same level of protection as ``Double V'' 
equipped variants and that may immediately benefit from Stryker 
upgrades explored as part of the study program. The committee 
encourages the Army to test and evaluate these technologies on 
the Stryker platform, with emphasis on the MGS and NBCRV 
variants that currently lack the same protection levels as 
other Stryker vehicles. The committee directs the Secretary of 
the Army to brief the committee by December 15, 2014 describing 
the technologies identified within the Stryker Vehicle 
Survivability Systems Integration Study program, as well as the 
outcomes of any testing of these technologies on the Stryker 
platform.

Transparent armor technology development

    The budget request contained $110.0 million in PE 63005A 
for Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology. Of this 
amount, $53.7 million was requested for combat vehicle 
survivability research and development to include transparent 
armor technology.
    This program element matures, integrates and demonstrates 
combat and tactical vehicle automotive technologies that enable 
a lighter, more mobile and more survivable force. The combat 
vehicle survivability project matures and demonstrates 
protection and survivability technologies such as active 
protection systems, advanced vehicle armors, blast mitigation 
and safety devices to address both traditional and asymmetric 
threats to ground vehicles. The committee believes this project 
should also consider emerging technologies in the fields of 
glass, polymers, and coatings to field more resilient and 
lightweight transparent armor.
    The committee notes that improved transparent armor 
materials are required for improved durability and 
survivability of combat and tactical vehicles, as well as 
potentially reducing overall life-cycle and repair costs. The 
committee encourages the Tank Automotive Research Development 
and Engineering Center to engage in cooperative agreements with 
industry and academia in order to further the development of 
transparent armor material technology.
    The committee recommends $110.0 million, the full amount of 
the request, in PE 63005A for combat vehicle and automotive 
advanced technology.

UH-72 Helicopter health monitoring system

    The committee is aware that the UH-72 Light Utility 
Helicopter (LUH) is not currently equipped with a health 
monitoring system. However, the committee has been informed 
that the commercial variant of the UH-72, the EC-145, is 
currently being outfitted with a Next Generation Health 
Monitoring System (NGHMS).
    The committee understands that a NGHMS could provide total 
aircraft monitoring and diagnostics of mechanical and 
electrical systems within a lightweight distributed 
architecture consisting of miniature sensors that contain 
processing and analysis functions operating with non-
proprietary data protocols in a secure cloud management 
infrastructure. NGHMS maintenance intelligence could provide 
early warning for failing systems that may reduce costly 
emergency maintenance, improving UH-72 maintenance schedules 
and fleet readiness.
    Therefore, the committee encourages Army Program Executive 
Officer Aviation and Program Manager Utility Helicopter, to 
engage in a demonstration of NGHMS on the UH-72. In addition, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 
2015, that describes the potential for integrating and 
demonstrating NGHMS on the UH-72 platform. However, the 
committee expects that if the Army makes the decision to 
proceed with a program of record that it will be done using 
full and open competition in accordance with Federal 
Acquisition Regulations.

Universal tactical controller for unmanned systems

    The budget request contained no funding for a universal 
tactical controller for unmanned systems.
    The committee is aware that there is not presently a 
documented roadmap for acquiring a universal tactical 
controller for unmanned air and ground assets because there is 
neither a validated requirement, nor specific funding 
programmed. However, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, the committee directed the Secretary of the Army, in 
coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to conduct an 
advisability and feasibility study for developing a universal 
controller for Class I unmanned aerial systems and unmanned 
ground systems.
    As a result of this report, the committee recognizes the 
Army and the Marine Corps have collaborated to experiment with 
the feasibility of a universal tactical robotic controller for 
unmanned air and ground systems at the battalion and below 
echelons, with the results being viewed favorably. The 
committee notes that a draft Army Capabilities Development 
Document (CDD) for the Common Robotic System-Individual (CRS-I) 
has been generated which includes the capability for a common 
tactical controller that can control both air and ground 
assets. The committee understands that once the CRS-I CDD is 
validated, funding is programmed, and the program is initiated, 
acquisition of such a controller would likely be achieved 
through full and open competition and fielded as part of the 
CRS-I program.
    Given these findings and the military services' growing 
reliance on unmanned systems for a variety of missions, the 
committee encourages the Army and the Marine Corps to 
accelerate the development of a universal common tactical 
controller, to generate an acquisition roadmap, and to program 
funding for this initiative in the fiscal year 2016 Future 
Years Defense Program.

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $16.3 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Navy. The committee 
recommends $16.2 billion, a decrease of $82.5 million to the 
budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are 
identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Amphibious Combat Vehicle increment 1.1 program

    The budget request contained $105.7 million in PE 63611M 
for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program.
    The committee understands that the Marine Corps has 
significantly changed its acquisition strategy for the ACV 
program and will now use an incremental approach to developing, 
procuring, and fielding a next generation family of amphibious 
combat vehicles. The committee notes that in the near term, the 
Marine Corps is planning to use the first vehicle increment, 
ACV increment 1.1, as an armored personnel carrier that would 
deliver marines from ship-to-shore by means of a connector 
craft, and be used for inland missions. The committee 
recognizes this would address an immediate near-term, urgent 
capability gap for improved tactical mobility and survivability 
for deployed Marine infantry units.
    The committee notes that while the proposed schedule for 
ACV increment 1.1 is aggressive, the committee expects the 
Marine Corps to benefit from lessons learned from previous next 
generation assault amphibious vehicle programs that suffered 
from requirements creep and immature technology readiness 
levels that led to significant cost overruns and schedule 
delays. The committee understands that results from previous 
developmental testing conducted on vehicles participating in 
the former Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) vehicle program, to 
include limited user demonstrations, have informed the Marine 
Corps that the technology for these potential vehicles is 
highly mature and is consistent with a stable set of 
requirements for this vehicle. Accordingly, the committee 
understands that the Marine Corps is recommending a streamlined 
procurement and fielding strategy for the ACV increment 1.1 
vehicle. The committee supports the intent to streamline the 
procurement and fielding of the ACV increment 1.1 vehicle, and 
believes this program could potentially serve as an example for 
future major defense acquisition program reform. However, the 
committee notes that this streamlined approach to ACV increment 
1.1 is contingent on mature technology and validated and 
stabilized requirements. The committee will continue to closely 
monitor this program under the auspices of the committee's 
ongoing comprehensive acquisition reform effort.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), in 
coordination with Headquarters Marine Corps, to brief the 
committee not later than September 1, 2014, on the 
justification used to streamline the ACV increment 1.1 vehicle 
program, to include the documented results from the Marine 
Requirements Oversight Council and the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council reviews, as well as the documented results 
from the Materiel Development Decision. The committee also 
directs the Assistant Secretary to brief the committee on any 
potential procedural and/or regulatory barriers that may 
prevent the Marine Corps from streamlining the ACV increment 
1.1 program. Based on information already provided to the 
committee by the Marine Corps regarding the streamlined 
procurement strategy for the ACV increment 1.1 program, the 
committee understands additional funds would also be required 
in fiscal year 2015 to support a contract award in fiscal year 
2015.
    The committee recommends $190.8 million, an increase of 
$85.1 million, in PE 63611M for the ACV Increment 1.1 vehicle 
program.

Briefing on the Navy Laser Weapon System

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief 
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 2, 2015, on the 
performance of the Navy Laser Weapon System (LaWS) after 
deployment aboard the USS Ponce. The committee requests the 
following development groups be represented at this brief: 
Directed Energy and Electric Weapons, Office of Naval Research; 
Naval Surface Warfare Center; Ship Command of the USS Ponce 
while testing LaWS; the actual operators of LaWS aboard the USS 
Ponce; and any other briefers the Secretary deems appropriate. 
This brief shall include: the preparation of the weapon system 
for deployment at sea, structural and power accommodations on 
the USS Ponce, any special training for the officers and crew, 
performance of LaWS from the perspective of the operators, 
recommendations for future pre-deployment training, and an 
assessment on the feasibility of near-term deployment of a 
directed energy ship defense system across the Navy.

Marine Corps Rifle Mounted Optical Systems and Modifications

    The committee continues to support the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps's ongoing efforts to lighten the combat carrying 
load of Marines, as well as efforts to modernize individual 
warfighter equipment. The committee understands the Marine 
Corps is developing the Family of Optical Systems and 
Modifications (FOSAM) in response to a universal urgent need 
from deployed Marines. The FOSAM is a suite of multi-functional 
weapon optical systems to include various thermal, image 
intensifier, magnified optical, laser range-finding, 
illuminating, and pointer functionalities that would replace 
multiple single-purpose systems. The committee understands the 
FOSAM could improve functional capability for the warfighter, 
lessen the weight of individual equipment items, reduce the 
number of equipment items requiring field maintenance, and 
drive down operating costs. The committee encourages the Marine 
Corps to execute their current acquisition strategies for FOSAM 
and expects any future contracts to be competitively awarded.

MQ-4C Triton program

    The budget request contained $498.0 million in PE 35220N 
for research and development of the MQ-4C Triton unmanned 
aerial system (UAS).
    The committee notes that low rate initial production for 
the MQ-4C has been delayed one year to fiscal year 2016. The 
committee believes that this is a prudent delay that will allow 
sufficient development and testing to be completed and to 
minimize the risks of concurrent development and production. In 
addition, the committee is encouraged that the Department of 
the Navy has maintained stable requirements for the MQ-4C 
Triton. The Department of Defense's history of rushing complex 
systems into production before adequate testing has occurred 
and constantly changing requirements has resulted in excessive 
cost growth and unnecessary schedule delays. The committee 
encourages the Navy to continue with a conservative approach to 
the schedule and requirements for the MQ-4C in order to ensure 
that the program remains on a realistic path to providing the 
Navy with initial operational capability in 2018.
    Additionally, the committee is concerned about significant 
delays in the research and development funding profile for 
development of the multi-intelligence (Multi-INT) signals 
intelligence (SIGINT) suite for the Triton aircraft. Sliding 
the development of this capability significantly elevates the 
risks associated with integrating SIGINT capabilities into the 
baseline aircraft ahead of the planned Milestone C event, the 
full rate production decision for the Multi-INT capability. 
Further, the committee is concerned about the maturity of the 
Triton Multi-INT concept of operations and resourcing with 
respect to integration of the ground station within the 
national and Department of the Navy processing, exploitation 
and dissemination enterprise.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $530.4 million, an 
increase of $32.4 million, for MQ-4C baseline Triton research 
and development to return the development schedule of the 
Multi-INT Triton sensor suite back to the plan proposed by the 
Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2014.

Navy deployment of the laser weapon system

    The committee commends the Navy on its recent efforts to 
operationally deploy a directed energy laser weapon system. The 
Department of Defense has invested significant resources in 
directed energy weapon system research and development (R&D) 
with limited success at fielding an operational system. The 
committee recognizes the challenges posed by these R&D efforts, 
and understands the complexity of the issues that still need to 
be addressed in order to transition directed energy technology 
to viable weapon systems. Recent demonstrations within the 
directed energy community, such as the Counter-electronics High 
Power Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) by the Air Force and the 
High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL-MD) by the Army, 
have shown significant progress toward addressing these issues. 
The committee notes that the deployment of the Laser Weapon 
System (LaWS) by the Navy onboard the USS Ponce, which will 
occur late in 2014, was the first deployment of a high energy 
laser system on a U.S. vessel in a realistic maritime 
environment. The committee congratulates the Navy on the 
achievement of this major milestone and looks forward to seeing 
the results of this deployment and how it will inform future 
decisions related to directed energy weapons.

Navy reimbursable work for other Federal agencies

    The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations 
recently issued guidance to Navy working capital funded 
entities, including the science and technology laboratories and 
test and evaluation centers, to cease conducting reimbursable 
work for other Federal agencies. The committee is concerned 
that such a moratorium ignores how working capital funded 
entities operate and the value that outside, reimbursable work 
can have on reducing the overall rate structure for entities 
like the naval warfare centers. The committee also believes 
that such a move could be detrimental to the overall efficiency 
of the Federal research and test enterprise by forcing other 
Federal partners to rely on contractors to provide these 
services, or to build additional, redundant scientific and test 
capabilities. For example, the Department of Homeland Security 
works very closely with the naval warfare centers to provide 
science, technology, test and evaluation capabilities for its 
programs, and without that support, the Department of Homeland 
Security would have to devote a larger percentage of its 
research, development, test, and evaluation budget to providing 
those services itself.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, 
in coordination with the Chief of Naval Operations, to provide 
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 
2015, on the rationale for the decision to cease reimbursable 
work for Federal agencies outside of the Navy, and an analysis 
of the policy impacts of this decision, including the ability 
to facilitate interagency work and fully utilize existing 
infrastructure. The briefing should also examine the 
anticipated effect on Navy working capital fund rates if the 
policy is enforced, as well as the impact if the policy is 
rescinded. Finally, the briefing should examine the impact on 
each naval warfare center, and the role of the warfare center's 
commanding officers in making decisions related to reimbursable 
work.

Next Generation Land Attack and Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare weapon 
        development

    The budget request contained $32.4 million in PE 24229N for 
Tomahawk and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) 
development. The budget request also contained $194.3 million 
in Weapons Procurement, Navy for procurement of 100 Tomahawk 
missiles, which is a decrease of 96 missiles from what had been 
planned for procurement in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 
The budget request also proposes to terminate Tomahawk Block IV 
procurement beginning in fiscal year 2016. In addition, the 
budget request contained $203.0 million in PE 64786N for 
development of Increment I and Increment II of the Offensive 
Anti-Surface Warfare (OASUW) weapon.
    The committee is concerned by the Secretary of the Navy's 
recommendation to terminate procurement in 2016 of the Nation's 
only long-range, surface-launched land-attack cruise missile 
production capability prior to finalizing concept development 
of NGLAW, which is not planned to be operationally fielded 
until 2024 at the earliest. Furthermore, the committee is 
concerned that the capability to recertify current inventory 
Block IV Tomahawk missiles could be put at risk if the 
Secretary of the Navy decides to shutter the Tomahawk Block IV 
production line in fiscal year 2016. The committee is also 
concerned that the Secretary has not clearly articulated a 
medium- to long-range conventional cruise missile requirements 
and capabilities strategy or roadmap that explains the bridge 
between production of current missiles to the development, 
production, and fielding of OASUW and NGLAW. The Secretary has 
also not clearly articulated how the missile requirements and 
capabilities differ between OASUW and NGLAW in meeting 
combatant commander requirements, or the reason that a separate 
missile is needed for OASUW and NGLAW in order to meet 
offensive surface-attack mission requirements. Further, the 
Secretary has not clearly articulated how the inventory stock 
of long-range cruise missiles will be replenished if the 
current stock of Tomahawk missiles is utilized to fulfill test, 
training, and warfighting requirements between 2016-24. The 
committee is also concerned that the Navy is well below all 
categories of inventory requirements and is discouraged that 
the Navy is only using one category of inventory requirements 
in stating that there is no risk by terminating Tomahawk Block 
IV production in fiscal year 2016.
    The recommendation to shutter the Tomahawk Block IV 
production line is further compounded by the fact that OASUW 
Increment I is just beginning to transition to a program of 
record, and OASUW Increment II is still in the concept 
definition and refinement phase. The committee supports current 
efforts to develop an OASUW Increment I capability to fulfill 
the urgent operational need of the Commander, U.S. Pacific 
Command, and encourages the Secretary to aggressively pursue 
fielding this capability.
    Therefore, the committee is skeptical of the Secretary of 
the Navy's decision to cease production of Tomahawk Block IV in 
2016. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees in 
conjunction with the submission of the budget request for 
fiscal year 2016, that articulates the following: (1) a 15-year 
medium to long-range land attack cruise missile strategy and 
roadmap; (2) known or anticipated shortfalls and capability 
gaps of current cruise missiles; (3) an explanation of 
requirement differences between OASUW and NGLAW missile 
capabilities; (4) a transition strategy from current production 
land-attack cruise missiles to recertification of current 
inventory cruise missiles that discusses anticipated cost, 
schedule, and execution risks and issues; and (5) the cost, 
schedule, and execution risk associated with replenishment of 
current inventory cruise missiles that may be used for test, 
training, and operational requirements in order to maintain a 
sufficient inventory of cruise missiles until NGLAW is 
operationally fielded. The report may contain a classified 
annex or any other information that the Secretary desires to 
convey to the congressional defense committees.
    The committee recommends $32.4 million, the full amount 
requested, in PE 24229N for Tomahawk and Next Generation Land 
Attack Weapon (NGLAW) development. The committee recommends 
$276.3 million, an increase of $82.0 million, in Weapons 
Procurement, Navy for procurement of 196 Tomahawk missiles and 
to reduce risk to the Tomahawk missile industrial base. 
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that 
would authorize multi-year procurement authority for Tomahawk 
Block IV missiles if the Secretary of the Navy determines 
during deliberations of the fiscal year 2016 budget request 
that it is not prudent to shutter the production line at this 
time. The committee would support the Secretary's decision to 
procure the maximum amount of additional missiles to fully 
satisfy inventory requirements and bridge transition to 
Tomahawk Block IV recertification and modernization in the most 
cost-effective manner possible, and especially during periods 
of constrained fiscal resources. Finally, the committee 
recommends $203.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 
64786N for development of Increment I and Increment II of the 
Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare weapon.

Oceanographic research

    The budget request contained $45.4 million in PE 62435N for 
the Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research program.
    For academic research, the Navy operates and maintains 
Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research (AGOR) 
vessels. Three of these vessels require a mid-life overhaul, 
partial funding for which was provided in the Consolidated and 
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6). 
The committee notes that funding provided to date does not 
fully support all of the items that the Navy has determined are 
necessary to fully extend the life of these AGOR ships to 40-45 
years.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $65.4 million, an 
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 62435N for Ocean Warfighting 
Environment Applied Research, to procure the entirety of a mid-
life overhaul. The committee notes that the inclusion of this 
authorization of appropriations is predicated on merit-based 
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of 
section 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, or on 
competitive procedures.
    The committee continues to believe that oceanographic 
research is a core function of the Navy, and remains committed 
to ensuring the ability of the Navy to sustain its research 
priorities, even in the face of fiscally constrained budgets. 
The committee is concerned that the Navy has been decreasing 
funding in oceanographic research, especially sea-going 
research, and about the negative long-term implications these 
trends are likely to have on areas like anti-submarine warfare 
and battlespace awareness. The committee believes that the Navy 
infrastructure such as the AGOR vessels, deep submergence 
facilities such as the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, or 
the instrumentation investments made by the Defense University 
Research Instrumentation Program are vital components to the 
Navy's program. Navy science and technology funding also plays 
a key role in information stewardship, including ocean mapping, 
oceanographic and meteorological data, that supports Navy, 
national and international scientific goals.

Precision extended range munition program

    The budget request contained $156.6 million in PE 26623M 
for Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems. Of this 
amount, $11.6 million was for the 120mm Precision Extended 
Range Munition (PERM) program.
    The PERM is a GPS-guided, precision munition that consists 
of a propelling system, warhead, guidance system, fuze and 
container, and will be fired from a 120mm Rifled Towed Mortar.
    Section 216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to certify to the congressional 
defense committees the stand-alone operational need for PERM, 
as well as a sufficient business case for PERM, as opposed to 
not using existing precision munitions in the war reserve. The 
committee notes this certification has not yet been provided, 
however, the committee has been informed by the Marine Corps, 
as well as the Joint Staff, that a favorable certification is 
imminent.
    The committee is aware that the PERM program is the only 
120mm extended range precision guided mortar program of record. 
The committee understands the PERM program is currently on 
schedule and a milestone C decision is currently scheduled for 
first quarter fiscal year 2015. The committee expects the Army 
and Marine Corps to continue to coordinate efforts for next 
generation precision guided munition programs.
    The committee recommends $11.6 million, full funding of the 
request, in PE 26623M for PERM development and low rate initial 
production.

Submarine detection research

    The committee is concerned about the emerging threat of 
submarines that could potentially be deployed by adversaries in 
littoral areas of the United States. These platforms are 
expected to employ sophisticated quieting technologies to mask 
operations and deployment patterns. However, the committee 
understands that such submarines create wakes that can alter 
water column stresses and seafloor roughness over movable 
sediment beds, and that alteration of this roughness could 
leave a detectable non-acoustical signature that can be 
exploited to identify and track enemy forces in littoral zones, 
and also help to guide mobility operations of U.S. forces. The 
committee notes that recent advancements in multi-beam sonar 
processing technologies may allow for the near real-time 
detection of the small mobile roughness elements. Therefore, 
the committee encourages the Navy to evaluate advanced concepts 
and technologies for non-acoustic submarine detection focused 
on littoral zone seafloor scarring.

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships

    The committee recognizes that there is a growing need for 
at-sea research and development platforms, especially with 
regard to the development and testing of new anti-submarine 
warfare technologies. In particular, the committee understands 
that there is a focus on new operational concepts that promise 
to improve wide area surveillance, detection, and attack 
capabilities against quiet adversary submarines operating in 
noisy and shallow water environments. A key element of this 
assessment process is support provided by the University-
National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships and their 
research base to assist in anti-submarine warfare research. The 
committee supports continued investment in the University-
National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships and would urge 
the Department of the Navy to continue this critical research.

Unmanned aerial system electronic attack demonstration

    The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 64376M for 
Marine Air-Ground Task Force electronic warfare development, 
but included no funds for an unmanned aerial system (UAS) 
electronic attack demonstration.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Navy 
conducted a demonstration of an unmanned MQ-9 Reaper in a 
weapons and tactics instructor exercise at the Naval Air 
Weapons Station China Lake, California, in October 2013, which 
included 86 aircraft, over 200 aircrew members and over 3,000 
ground forces in a realistic threat environment. The committee 
understands that the MQ-9 was configured with a prototype 
stand-off jamming system which was able to defeat early warning 
threat radars, allowing the F/A-18 and AV-8B aircraft to 
penetrate the simulated enemy air defenses. The committee 
further notes that the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper would provide over 
20 hours of on-station time, which is about 15 hours longer 
than manned aircraft with similar capabilities, and would 
require less logistical support in a deployed location.
    Based on the results of the October 2013 demonstration and 
the ability of a UAS to perform an airborne electronic warfare 
mission, the committee encourages the Department of the Navy to 
continue to pursue this capability by conducting a more 
sophisticated demonstration in fiscal year 2015 that would 
include multiple UAS electronic attack aircraft with a UAS 
mission package that includes electronic attack, electronic 
support measures and communication features.

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike Program

    The budget request contained $403.0 million in PE 64404N 
for Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike 
(UCLASS) development.
    The committee believes that current UCLASS Air System 
Segment requirements will not address the emerging anti-access/
area-denial (A2/AD) challenges to U.S. power projection that 
originally motivated creation of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air 
System (N-UCAS) program during the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR), and which were reaffirmed in both the 2010 QDR 
and 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. In particular, the 
disproportionate emphasis in the requirements on unrefueled 
endurance to enable continuous intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) support to the Carrier Strike Group (CSG), 
a capability need presumably satisfied by the planned 
acquisition of 68 MQ-4C Tritons, would result in an aircraft 
with serious deficiencies in both survivability and internal 
weapons payload capacity and flexibility. Further, the cost 
limits for the aircraft are more consistent with a much less 
capable aircraft and will not enable the Navy to build a 
relevant vehicle that leverages readily available and mature 
technology. As planned, UCLASS appears unsupportive of the 2012 
Defense Strategic Guidance for the United States to ``maintain 
its ability to project power in areas in which our access and 
freedom to operate are challenged.''
    The committee believes that the Navy needs a long-range, 
survivable unmanned ISR-strike aircraft as an integral part of 
the carrier air wings as soon as possible. However, investing 
in a program today that does not adequately address the threat 
will only delay, and could preclude, investment in and fielding 
of the right system later. Therefore, the committee believes 
special attention needs to be paid to threshold UCLASS 
requirements.
    Finally, the committee is concerned with multiple aspects 
of the proposed UCLASS acquisition strategy, including: 
insufficient time and funding for contractors to mature their 
designs in support of a full-scope Preliminary Design Review, 
due in part to late-developing and still-evolving air system 
performance requirements; the additional risk to the program 
associated with the Navy's decision to abandon the precision 
landing system developed and successfully tested during the 
UCAS-D effort; and the potential risk associated with NAVAIR 
developing the UCLASS Mission Control System internally.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a review of the requirements for a carrier-based 
unmanned aircraft system to extend the ISR and precision strike 
reach of the carrier air wing in A2/AD threat environments 
projected for 2025-2035, and to provide a report on the review 
to the congressional defense committees by December 30, 2014. 
The review should pay special attention to revised threshold 
requirements for unrefueled mission endurance, automated aerial 
refueling, refueled mission endurance, survivability, internal 
weapons carriage and flexibility, and autonomy/mission control 
system functionality. It should include mission- and campaign-
level quantitative analysis of representative carrier-based 
unmanned air system missions in the 2025-2035 timeframe, 
including but not limited to ISR, precision strike, and 
electronic attack. It should also consider the overall 
composition of the future carrier air wing, including the 
optimal mix of manned and unmanned squadrons, for conducting 
representative joint ISR-strike campaigns in the 2030 
timeframe. The committee also includes a provision elsewhere in 
this Act that would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from 
awarding a contract for the UCLASS air vehicle segment until 
the Secretary of Defense completes the requirements review and 
provides the report to the congressional defense committees.

Virginia Payload Module program

    The budget request contained $132.6 million in PE 64580N 
for development of the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) program.
    The committee believes that undersea strike capability will 
be a critical capability for the U.S. military in the future, 
as U.S. forces begin to operate in increasingly contested 
environments. In addition, the committee notes that with the 
pending retirement of the four guided-missile nuclear 
submarines (SSGN), the U.S. military will lose a significant 
portion of its undersea strike capability. The committee 
believes that the VPM program is the lowest risk, lowest cost, 
and best path for maintaining, and eventually expanding, 
critical undersea strike capabilities. The committee also notes 
that by integrating the new strike capability into Block V 
Virginia-class submarines, the Navy is avoiding having to start 
an entirely new program that could take decades to come to 
fruition, whereas in contrast, the VPM program could provide 
this new capability to the fleet in time to partially 
compensate for the retirement of the SSGNs. Therefore the 
committee continues to support the VPM program.
    The committee recommends $132.6 million, the full amount 
requested, in PE 64580N for development of the VPM program.

         Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $23.7 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force. The committee 
recommends $23.9 billion, an increase of $125.5 million to the 
budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force program 
are identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Additive manufacturing

    The committee is aware that additive manufacturing 
techniques and capabilities have the potential to dramatically 
lower the cost of maintaining aging weapon platforms for the 
defense sustainment community. Currently, the Air Force uses 
additive manufacturing for design iteration, prototyping, 
tooling and fixtures, and for some noncritical parts. However, 
in the future, the Air Force hopes to use additive 
manufacturing for building actual aerospace parts. The Air 
Force anticipates soon using additive manufacturing for parts 
like fuel nozzles and heat exchangers. The committee believes 
that the Air Force, and the rest of the Department of Defense, 
can utilize additive manufacturing improvements to save money 
in up-front manufacturing costs; improve fleet readiness by 
creating on-demand alternatives to current parts supply chain; 
reduce parts certification and transition costs; and reduce 
costs with creative improved weapon systems parts that are 
lighter and stronger. The committee encourages the Air Force to 
look at creative applications of additive manufacturing 
technology to reduce sustainment costs for its weapon platforms 
and other systems.

Air Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities talon hate 
        program

    The Department of the Air Force Tactical Exploitation of 
National Capabilities (AFTENCAP) project pursues a wide range 
of technological and operational objectives through transition 
of proven national capabilities to warfighters for operational 
use and participation in design of future national capabilities 
in order to leverage them for tactical users. The committee 
supports the TENCAP program.
    The Talon Hate program, developed under AFTENCAP, fields in 
fiscal year 2015 and should provide a unique multi-domain 
capability to counter threats in the U.S. Pacific Command 
(USPACOM) area of responsibility (AOR). The committee 
understands the importance of reliable, jam-proof 
communications between 4th and 5th generation fighters, the 
need to broadcast multi-source information in a Link 16 
compatible format, and the need to integrate national strategic 
data into that communication network. While the Talon Hate 
program will field four developmental pods for F-15s in the 
USPACOM AOR, the committee is concerned that a strategic plan 
to address this mission has not been developed, along with an 
analysis of alternative technical approaches to meeting the 
associated warfighter requirements.
    Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary of the 
Air Force, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, by February 16, 2015, on the enduring military 
requirements associated with the Talon Hate program, a 
comprehensive cost and benefit analysis of the various 
technical approaches to solving those requirements, and the 
associated strategic plan to addressing the requirements 
including near and mid-term recommendations.

Air Force weapons simulation framework

    The committee is aware that the Air Force ceded ownership 
of weapon system models to the prime contractors in the late 
1980s. At the time, the Air Force decided to treat weapons as 
closed systems with the developer maintaining responsibility 
for every element of the system, to include all simulations. 
Government-owned models were relinquished and the government's 
ability to conduct independent studies atrophied. The committee 
is concerned that such processes put the Air Force at a 
disadvantage to the commercial providers in the weapons 
acquisition process, and run counter to trends like open 
architecture, which allow the government to provide broad 
architectural guidance but leave execution to the contractor.
    The committee is aware, though, that the Army has 
maintained its development of Government-owned simulation 
resources in support of such programs as the Joint Common 
Missile. This has allowed the Air Force to regrow some of its 
modeling and simulation capability by working closely with the 
Army. The committee urges the Air Force to continue to work 
with the Army, and industry, to develop a conventional weapons 
simulation framework to lower life-cycle costs for conventional 
weapons and conduct benchmark tests for programs such as the 
Small Diameter Bomb.

B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement program

    The budget request contained $55.5 million in PE 11113F for 
B-52 squadrons, but contained no funding for the B-52 Strategic 
Radar Replacement (SR2) program.
    The committee notes that the B-52 SR2 program is a radar 
replacement program that could take advantage of the advanced 
capabilities of modern, non-developmental radars, and maximize 
commonality with other platforms. In April 2011, the Air Force 
Requirements Oversight Council recommended replacement of the 
existing B-52 radar with a non-developmental radar system. 
However, due to Air Force budget affordability concerns 
stemming from compliance with the Budget Control Act of 2011 
(Public Law 112-25), the B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement 
program was terminated in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. 
In 2013, the Air Force reported to the congressional defense 
committees that a radar replacement is estimated to be the 
lower cost option rather than sustaining the current radar over 
the projected service life of the B-52. The committee 
understands the sustainment costs for the legacy radar system 
are predicted to significantly increase after 2017 based on 
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources issues.
    Therefore, based on the projected savings, as well as the 
need for common conventional capability across the B-52 
aircraft fleet, the committee encourages the Secretary of the 
Air Force to include funding in the fiscal year 2016 budget 
request that would begin replacement of the B-52 legacy radar 
system.

Common airborne sense and avoid

    The budget request contained $11.8 million in PE 35220F for 
the design, development, integration and testing of a common 
airborne sense and avoid (C-ABSAA) capability for unmanned 
aerial vehicles.
    The C-ABSAA system would provide the capability to 
integrate unmanned aerial vehicles into United States national 
airspace system and globally. The committee notes that plans 
for fiscal year 2015 include continuing to refine C-ABSAA 
requirements and continuing to mature the C-ABSAA system with 
the Air Force Research Lab. The committee supports this plan 
and encourages the Department of the Air Force to continue 
annual funding to support a Milestone B decision in fiscal year 
2019.
    The committee recommends $11.8 million, the full amount of 
the budget request, in PE 35220F for C-ABSAA design, 
development, integration and testing.

Cyber operations program elements

    The committee notes that the Air Force has created specific 
program element and procurement lines for Offensive Cyber 
Operations (OCO) and Defense Cyber Operations (DCO). The 
committee is aware that this was done to consolidate the 
funding activities in these areas into single program lines to 
allow for rapid technology development and deployment for 
offensive and defensive tools. The committee commends the Air 
Force for being proactive in consolidating its activities, 
providing transparency in oversight for Congress while also 
allowing for rapid acquisition on the part of the Air Force. 
The committee believes this is a model for program management 
and oversight that should be emulated by the other services and 
Defense Agencies, to the extent that is practicable.

E-8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System replacement 
        program

    The budget request contained $73.1 million in PE 37581F for 
Next Generation (NextGen) Joint Surveillance Target Attack 
Radar System (JSTARS) research and development. NextGen JSTARS 
would replace the current E-8C JSTARS aircraft and provide 
battle management, command and control, intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance for the combatant commanders. 
The Department of the Air Force currently plans to attain 
initial operational capability with four NextGen JSTARS 
aircraft in fiscal year 2022, and to attain full operational 
capability with 16 aircraft in fiscal year 2025.
    The committee notes that the E-8C JSTARS aircraft has 
provided effective joint air command and control in both land 
and maritime arenas. However, current JSTARS platforms are 
aging and the sustainment costs have increased. The committee 
also notes that the budget request includes a Department of the 
Air Force proposal to recapitalize the JSTARS fleet with a 
commercially available aircraft that will decrease the 
logistics footprint, decrease sustainment costs, increase 
operational flexibility, and operate in an anti-access/area 
denial environment. The committee supports this decision. 
However, the committee notes that past intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft programs have failed 
due to the selection of platforms too small to properly support 
the necessary mission equipment and crew. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Air Force to carefully review its 
requirements for the crew size, electrical power, mission 
systems equipment, and aircraft performance to ensure that any 
new JSTARS platform can provide equal or better capability than 
the current E-8C aircraft.
    The committee also notes that the Department of the Air 
Force currently plans to retire the JSTARS T-3 test aircraft in 
fiscal year 2015 and to retire five additional E-8C aircraft in 
fiscal year 2016. The committee further notes that that the 
NextGen JSTARS program is scheduled to release a request for 
proposal in late fiscal year 2015 and source selection is 
planned to be conducted in fiscal year 2016. The committee 
expects that the Department of the Air Force will take no 
action to prematurely retire E-8C aircraft before 2016, and 
before the committee is fully briefed on the acquisition 
strategy, schedule, costs, and key performance parameters of 
the NextGen JSTARS aircraft program.
    Finally, the committee understands that the Department of 
the Air Force intends to leverage high technological-readiness-
level communication, sensor, battle management and command and 
control system technologies to reduce program cost, reduce 
schedule and reduce risk of the NextGen JSTARS aircraft 
program. The committee is concerned that a lengthy acquisition 
program will result in a capabilities gap which will leave the 
combatant commanders without an acceptable level of ground 
moving target indicator and battle management command and 
control capability for several years. The committee notes that 
the JSTARS analysis of alternatives described a need for the 
integration of existing technology rather than the acquisition 
of new systems, and believes that the use of existing 
technology combined with a commercially available aircraft can 
result in a significantly faster acquisition program. 
Accordingly, the committee urges the Department of the Air 
Force to accelerate the NextGen JSTARS program.
    The committee recommends $73.1 million, the full amount 
requested, in PE 37581F for NextGen JSTARS research and 
development.

EC-130 Compass Call aircraft replacement program

    The committee notes that the current fleet of EC-130H 
``Compass Call'' aircraft are the Air Force's only wide-area, 
airborne Command and Control Warfare/Information Operations 
weapon system, and that the Air Force plans to retire seven 
Compass Call aircraft in fiscal year 2016. In addition, the 
committee understands that the Air Force is conducting an 
analysis of alternatives (AOA) on a follow-on capability to 
replace the current Compass Call aircraft. The committee 
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to 
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than June 1, 
2015, on the status and content of the AOA.

Ejection seat safety and reliability improvement program

    The budget request contained no funds for the procurement 
of modernized and upgraded ejection seats for Department of the 
Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft.
    The committee understands that aircraft aging and heavy 
operations tempo have produced fatigue and corrosion in legacy 
ejection seat designs which were designed and procured by the 
Department of the Air Force in the mid-1970s. The committee 
further understands that the incorporation of modern helmet 
mounted displays creates significant risk to pilot survival 
during high-speed ejections because aerodynamic forces at high 
speeds within the current ejection seat operational envelope 
lift the modern helmet off the pilot, generating high-neck 
tension loads. Data indicates that the Joint Helmet Mounted 
Cueing System and helmet mounted displays in tactical fighter 
aircraft can structurally fail above 450 knots, which causes 
wind-stream aerodynamics on the pilot's helmet to generate neck 
tension loads over 700 pounds, well above risk-of-injury 
thresholds to the pilot. The committee notes that the 
Department of Defense Military Handbook 516B (MIL-HDBK-516B) 
for Airworthiness Certification Criteria prescribes a 
requirement for less than 5 percent risk of major injury 
resulting from an aircraft ejection event, but that the 
requirement stipulated is not being met today for ejection 
seats in legacy fighter aircraft or fifth generation tactical 
aircraft. The committee understands that state-of-the art 
upgraded ejection seats can effectively address these risks 
while at the same time providing significantly improved ease of 
maintenance and increased aircraft availability, but the 
Department of the Air Force has failed to take advantage of the 
new and improved ejection seat technology that would greatly 
enhance protection of pilots in ejection seat aircraft during 
emergency situations. The committee notes that the high-speed 
ejection of a tactical fighter pilot in January 2014 resulted 
in a pilot fatality because of the ejection's high-neck tension 
load encountered during the ejection.
    Subsequently, the committee encourages the Department of 
the Air Force to develop a strategy to begin replacing the 
1970s-designed ejection seats equipped in most legacy fighter 
and bomber aircraft as soon as possible. The committee believes 
that minimizing sustainment life-cycle costs through 
commonality with currently-fielded components should also be 
included as a prime determinant in selecting an upgraded 
ejection seat.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees with the submission of the 
President's fiscal year 2016 budget to Congress, that 
articulates which Department of Defense type, model, series 
ejection seat equipped aircraft meet the aircrew survivability 
and equipment airworthiness requirements stipulated by current 
policy and regulation of the Department for pilots and aircrew 
that wear advanced helmet display equipment, night vision 
goggles, or both, during flying operations.
    Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee establishes 
two budget lines in research, development, test, and 
evaluation, Air Force account, and the Aircraft Procurement, 
Air Force account titled ``Ejection Seat Reliability 
Improvement Program''. The committee recommends $10.5 million, 
an increase of $10.5 million, of which $3.5 million is for 
initial qualification in the research, development, test, and 
evaluation, Air Force account, and $7.0 million is for initial 
installation of upgraded ejection seats in the Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force account.

F-35 25mm cannon ammunition

    The committee is concerned about the Air Force's plans for 
evaluating and fielding 25mm cannon ammunition for the F-35 
Joint Strike Fighter. Specifically, the committee is concerned 
about the procurement of some types of 25mm ammunition, 
potentially at the exclusion of any alternative North American 
National Technology Industrial Base offerings. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a 
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later 
than August 1, 2014, on the Air Force's plans to evaluate, 
test, and field 25mm cannon ammunition for the Air Force's F-35 
fleet.

F-35 aircraft program

    The F-35 aircraft program is the largest acquisition 
program within the Department of Defense, with a current 
planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft for the Navy, Marine 
Corps, and Air Force to meet fifth generation U.S. fighter 
requirements. The committee notes that despite the decreased 
budget authority contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011 
(Public Law 112-25), the Department has not decreased its 
planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft. The committee strongly 
supports the requirement for fifth generation fighter aircraft 
due to projected increases in the effectiveness and quantities 
of threat anti-aircraft ground systems and adversary aircraft 
and their associated air-to-air weapons. The committee believes 
that without advanced fifth generation aircraft, the United 
States may be significantly limited in its ability to project 
power in the future.
    The F-35 program is approximately 50 percent through its 
flight test program which is planned to be completed in the 
first quarter of fiscal year 2018. At a hearing held by the 
House Committee on Armed Services' Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces on March 26, 2014, the F-35 program executive 
officer testified that the F-35 program is making slow but 
steady progress. The committee notes that the F-35 program 
executive officer has identified the software development for 
the final development software block, known as block 3F, as an 
area with some risk remaining, which could result in a 4- to 6-
month delay in delivery of software block 3F. In the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee expressed 
a concern about delayed software development and recommended a 
provision that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish an 
independent team consisting of subject matter experts to review 
the development of F-35 software and to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees. This provision was included 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66). The committee expects this report to be 
submitted by June 2014, and will consider future actions based 
on the recommendations submitted by the independent team of 
subject matter experts.

F-35 block 4 program

    The budget request contained $71.8 million in PE 20714F, PE 
64800N, and PE 64800M for development of the F-35 block 4.
    The F-35 block 4 program is planned to provide follow-on F-
35 capabilities after completion of the engineering and 
manufacturing development program, currently scheduled for 
October 2017, which would include the integration of additional 
U.S. and partner nation weapons into the F-35 aircraft. The 
block 4 program would also provide a dual-capable F-35A 
aircraft for the Air Force, allowing it to perform both 
conventional and nuclear strike missions. Currently, the dual-
capable mission is performed by both F-16 and F-15E aircraft.
    The committee supports the F-35 block 4 program, which is 
developing a streamlined approach to deliver capabilities as 
soon as feasible. The committee notes that the block 4 
development program would be completed in two parts, a block 4A 
and block 4B, and further notes that the block 4B program is 
currently expected to achieve its initial operational 
capability in fiscal year 2024. The committee understands that 
the dual-capable F-35 aircraft would be included in block 4B, 
and to replace the aging F-16 fleet, the committee encourages 
the Department of the Air Force to accelerate the completion of 
block 4B with future budget requests.

Ground Moving Target Indicator Way Ahead

    Combat Operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
and the Republic of Iraq have highlighted a growing demand for 
airborne ground moving target indicator (GMTI) sensing as well 
as significant phenomenologically-driven performance 
limitations in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism 
operation environments. The committee understands that the 
Department of the Air Force intends to recapitalize the E-8C 
joint surveillance and targeting radar attack system (JSTARS) 
fleet on a more efficient airframe with modern radar, avionics, 
and communication systems, and on-board battle management and 
command and control (BMC2) and Intelligence Surveillance and 
Reconnaissance capability. Well ahead of the initial operating 
capability (IOC) of any replacement platform, the Department of 
the Air Force intends to reduce the E-8C fleet by nearly one 
third, by reducing the E-8C JSTARS fleet from 16 to 11 
aircraft, and to begin incrementally reducing associated E-8C 
JSTARS manpower.
    At the same time, the committee notes that the Department 
of the Air Force continues to test and field Global Hawk Block 
40 aircraft with the multi-platform radar technology insertion 
program (MP-RTIP) MTI radar, eventually fielding 11 high-
altitude, long endurance aircraft. The committee also notes 
that the Department of the Air Force development efforts 
relating to the vehicle dismount and exploitation radar (VADER) 
transitioned to the Army with no apparent plan to field a 
capability on Department of the Air Force remotely piloted 
aircraft (RPA).
    The committee is concerned that the volume and pace of 
change in the GMTI development and fielding may be indicative 
of a lack of precision in the underlying requirement set. 
Clearly, the need to recapitalize the current JSTARS aircraft 
is urgent, and the committee believes a rapid acquisition to 
achieve the required BMC2 and ISR capabilities is necessary. 
While the JSTARS recapitalization platform is planned to 
achieve far better performance in the areas of higher 
altitudes, superior sensing, increased operational availability 
and speed, the number of platforms to be fielded is identical 
to that of the current JSTARS fleet. However, the requirement 
for the number of JSTARS was established long before 11 long-
endurance high altitude GMTI platforms were developed. Also, 
limitations in GMTI performance against dismounts that led to 
the development of the VADER have not been fully addressed as 
part of the JSTARS recapitalization plan.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees and the congressional intelligence committees by 
February 16, 2015, that captures the aggregate requirement for 
GMTI capability and capacity for the Department of Defense. The 
report should detail the current validated requirements for 
GMTI capabilities and capacities. Requirements should be 
expressed in terms of sensor fidelity using metrics such as 
ground radar coverage area, revisit rate, minimum detection 
velocity, target locating error, radar imaging, hours on-
station per mission per month per year, sorties per month and 
per year, and anticipated targets types and density. The report 
should also highlight the degree to which the current Air Force 
plan, including the near-term reductions in JSTARS capacity and 
the end-state aggregate of 27 MTI aircraft compare to the 
underlying requirements.

Metals Affordability Initiative

    The budget request contained $32.2 million in PE 63112F for 
advanced materials for weapons systems. Of this amount, $5.4 
million is estimated for the Metals Affordability Initiative 
(MAI).
    The committee notes that the MAI is a public-private 
partnership that includes the entire domestic specialty 
aerospace metals industrial manufacturing base. Air Force 
participation with MAI has resulted in significant improvement 
in the manufacture of specialty metals for aerospace 
applications, including aluminum, beryllium, nickel-based 
superalloys and titanium. Due to the widespread use and need 
for the Department of Defense, the committee encourages the Air 
Force to engage with the other military departments and 
agencies to ensure they are able to leverage MAI for their 
specific needs. In addition, the committee encourages the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and 
Industrial Base Policy to examine the MAI partnership model to 
determine if it might be integrated into the work of the 
Lightweight and Modern Metals Manufacturing Innovation 
Institute in the advanced manufacturing initiative.
    The committee recommends $42.2 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 63112F for the MAI program.

Nuclear command and control for enduring tanker aircraft

    As the Air Force recapitalizes its tanker fleet, the 
committee believes it is important that nuclear command and 
control requirements for tankers be revalidated and a long-term 
plan be developed to fulfill any unmet requirements. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force and 
the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to review, and if 
appropriate update, the requirements contained in Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 6811.01C related 
to nuclear command, control, and communications for tanker 
aircraft. The committee further directs the Chairman to submit 
a report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 
2015, on the results of this review.
    Additionally, in the event that, subsequent to the 
Chairman's update, there are any unmet requirements contained 
in the updated 6811.01C for enduring tanker aircraft, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a 
plan to the congressional defense committees by November 1, 
2015, to ensure that enduring tanker aircraft meet all 
requirements contained in CJCSI 6811.01C, as updated, related 
to nuclear command, control, and communications. The plan 
should include a schedule for updating all enduring tanker 
aircraft to meet any unmet requirements as well as associated 
costs and program details for such a plan.

Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program

    The budget request contained $11.0 million in PE 41319F for 
the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) program.
    The committee understands that the Air Force plans to 
develop the PAR acquisition strategy, complete milestone B 
documentation, continue market research, and develop the 
Systems Requirements Document in fiscal year 2014 and 
throughout fiscal year 2015. The committee is also concerned 
that the Air Force is planning to circumvent section 2366b of 
title 10, United States Code, regarding the requirement to 
complete a Preliminary Design Review prior to commencement of 
milestone B and contract award for the aircraft selection. As 
well, the Systems Requirements Review will not occur until at 
least 6 months after the aircraft selection. The committee also 
understands that the Secretary of the Air Force may attempt to 
assume the roles and responsibilities of PAR product support 
manager, system and subsystems integrator, and engineering 
systems and technical authority, which is a departure from past 
and current practices for those functions regarding 
presidential support aircraft. The committee believes this may 
increase risk to product development and execution of life-
cycle sustainment activities of the PAR program.
    Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a 
provision that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to 
complete a Preliminary Design Review for the PAR program prior 
to the Milestone Decision Authority awarding a milestone B and 
contract approval for the PAR program. Further, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to comprehensively 
reassess the risk in assuming the aforementioned product 
support and integration management responsibilities, that have 
otherwise been the responsibility of the Original Equipment 
Manufacturer, for presidential support airlift aircraft.
    The committee recommends $11.0 million, the full amount 
requested, in PE 41319F for the PAR program.

Wide area surveillance

    The budget request contained $20.6 million in PE 35206F for 
development of airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained 
no funding for development of wide area surveillance.
    The committee notes that persistent day and night wide-area 
motion imagery (WAMI) capability is flying in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, and is considered by operational 
commanders to be a critical intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance program for combat units.
    The committee also notes that Congress provided an increase 
of $10.0 million in fiscal year 2014 to begin integration of a 
near-vertical direction finding capability into an existing 
WAMI-equipped MQ-9 unmanned aerial system, which is resulting 
in a multi-intelligence capability. The committee understands 
that the Department of the Air Force plans to fund a WAMI 
system in fiscal year 2016 to begin a program of record. The 
committee is concerned that without funding in fiscal year 2015 
to continue development of the multi-intelligence capable wide-
area surveillance system, engineering teams will be reduced or 
disbanded, technical support to deployed systems will be 
impacted, and program improvement efforts will be reduced or 
terminated. The committee further notes that the Chief of Staff 
of the Air Force included an increase of $10.0 million for a 
WAMI sensor program among his unfunded priorities for fiscal 
year 2015.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $30.6 million, an 
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 35206F for further development 
of WAMI.

       Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $16.8 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee 
recommends $17.0 billion, an increase of $223.3 million to the 
budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide 
program are identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Analysis of Alternatives for Undersea Clandestine Insertion of Special 
        Operations Forces

    The committee is aware of a recently completed Analysis of 
Alternatives (AOA) for Undersea Clandestine Insertion of 
Special Operations Forces and that the review provides 
alternatives for continued operational capability as well as 
future growth for Navy Sea, Air, Land undersea insertion 
capabilities. The committee understands that this AOA included 
representatives from U.S. Special Operations Command, the 
Department of the Navy (Program Executive Officer, Submarines), 
and the Joint Staff and was coordinated by a study director 
from the RAND Corporation, a Federally Funded Research and 
Development Center. The committee understands that the final 
publication of the AOA was to be made available to the 
congressional defense committees in March 2014.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a copy of the Analysis of Alternatives report in its 
entirety and a briefing on the report to the congressional 
defense committees by July 1, 2014. The report and briefing 
should be presented to the committees in unclassified and 
classified formats as determined by the Secretary of Defense.

Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Segment

    The budget request includes $1.004 billion for the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment in PE 
63882C for activities in research, development, test and 
evaluation, Defense-wide.
    The committee observes that while this is an increase for 
this program element, also referred to as the Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense (GMD) segment, in the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request when compared to the fiscal year 2014 request, that 
this year's request also includes two new Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA) activities, ``Improved Homeland Defense 
Interceptors'' and ``Discrimination Improvements for Homeland 
Defense'', not found in the prior year's request. Thus, the 
basic GMD program funding has been cut in the proposed budget 
request for fiscal year 2015.
    The request supports the MDA's top management focus areas: 
Capability Enhancement (CE) 2 Enhanced Kill Vehicle (EKV) 
return to intercept activities; interceptor reliability 
enhancements; sustainment of the weapons system; return to 
Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) deliveries; Missile Field 1 
refurbishment. The committee is concerned that as the only 
operationally-deployed system for defense of the United States 
against growing intercontinental ballistic missile threats, 
additional investments are required to ensure GMD provides 
reliable capability with long-term sustainment and 
modernization of the Nation's most strategic defensive weapon 
system. The committee observes this system is approaching half 
of its life, 10 of 20 years, and additional funding may be 
required to conduct a robust reliability growth and testing 
program, and perform a modernization and technology refresh 
program.
    The committee is aware that following two successive test 
failures of the CE-2 EKV (FTG-06 in January 2010 and FTG-06a in 
December 2010), MDA completed a successful non-intercept test 
on January 26, 2013. The next step for the CE-2 Return to 
Flight will be an intercept test scheduled for June of 2014. 
The committee is also aware that an attempted intercept test of 
the CE-1 EKV on July 5, 2013, which represents two-thirds of 
the operationally deployed GBI fleet but had not been tested 
since 2008, failed. The committee eagerly awaits the results of 
the Failure Review Board.
    The committee recommends $1.044 billion, an increase of 
$40.0 million, in PE 63882C for the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Midcourse Defense Segment in research, development, test and 
evaluation, Defense-wide. The committee expects these 
additional funds to begin to correct the short-fall present in 
the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the reliability, 
refresh and modernization of the GMD system, including to 
upgrade the Capability Enhancement-2 kill vehicle software and 
batteries, the Command Launch Equipment Ground Fire Control 
architecture that was begun in fiscal year 2014, and stockpile 
reliability efforts.

Bioforensic threat detection

    The committee is aware that detecting, deterring, and 
defeating biological and physical agents used by terrorists is 
of critical importance to national security. The committee is 
aware that bioforensic detection capabilities can be helpful by 
identifying molecular markers in human cells following exposure 
to threat agents, and using suitable biomarkers for subsequent 
detection using field deployable equipment. Such methods can be 
used to rapidly identify and understand human individuals; drug 
plant sourcing; plant-based geographic locations; and the 
distribution routes of terrorist agents. The committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to develop combined 
government, academic, and industrial partnerships to field 
small, deployable, and rapid bioforensic analysis capabilities 
for Department operational forces.

Biosecurity in Department of Defense research facilities

    The committee is concerned about the potential threat posed 
to the United States by biological weapons. The threat of a 
biological attack may come from a number of sources, including 
state, non-state and even lone actors, as was believed to be 
the case in the 2001 Anthrax attacks. The Subcommittee on 
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a hearing 
on October 11, 2013, that examined the state of U.S. efforts 
for biodefense. During that hearing, the panel of independent 
expert witnesses was critical of the biosafety and biosecurity 
procedures in medical research facilities, identifying a lapse 
of proper screening and consistent procedures as a potential 
risk with respect to lone actor threats. While the committee 
notes that the biological agents stored in medical research 
facilities are not the only source of weaponizable materials, 
the committee believes the Department of Defense should take 
all precautions possible to mitigate the risk of bioterrorism.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
House of Representatives not later than September 30, 2014, on 
biosecurity procedures within Department of Defense biological 
research facilities which handle or store Category A, B, or C 
priority pathogens. The briefing should include a discussion of 
personnel screening procedures, security procedures, and the 
means for training personnel on safety and security procedures. 
The briefing should also highlight any inconsistencies or 
variability in procedures across the facilities.

Capabilities to experimentally study militarily-relevant High Reynolds 
        Numbers

    In Department of Defense Directive 4180.01, issued on April 
16, 2014, the Department provides policy and guidance on energy 
planning, use, and management, and establishes an energy policy 
to ``enhance military capability, improve energy security, and 
mitigate costs in its use and management of energy.'' One of 
the means to achieve these ends will include ``improv[ing] the 
energy performance of weapons systems, platforms, equipment, 
and products, and their modifications.''
    The committee notes that mitigating turbulent boundary 
layer drag, which forms along the surfaces of all aircraft and 
marine platforms and produces a shear force that opposes the 
motion of the vehicle, is central to the goals of reducing fuel 
consumption and optimizing performance of military platforms, 
such as ships, submarines, and transport and fighter aircraft. 
Despite the critical and pervasive impact of these so-called 
``High Reynolds Number'' turbulent boundary layers, the 
committee is concerned that only limited domestic capability 
exists to experimentally study them, though such studies are 
critical to developing and applying advanced computational 
techniques and empirical models to enhance the energy 
efficiency and performance of military platforms.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Research and Engineering to provide a briefing to 
the House Armed Services Committee on the Department's 
technical capabilities to experimentally study military 
relevant High Reynolds Number turbulent boundary layers and any 
gaps in the capability to carry out such studies by February 1, 
2015.

Chemical Biological Defense Program threat priorities

    The committee is aware of significant efforts within the 
Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) to develop medical 
countermeasures to protect U.S. troops from chemical, 
biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats. The 
committee notes that the development of a drug or vaccine to 
treat or protect against a given threat in many cases will take 
up to a decade from the time of conception through the Food and 
Drug Administration approval process to be available for use. 
However, the committee recognizes that the CBRN threat space is 
constantly evolving in terms of the type and severity of 
threats U.S. troops are likely to encounter at any point in 
time. The committee is concerned about the mismatch in these 
timescales, and therefore directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs 
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 
2014, on the approved process for establishing and validating 
the priorities for the threats for medical countermeasures 
research and development. The briefing should include a list of 
the current threats, and the frequency with which the priority 
list is updated.

Combat helmet test and evaluation protocols

    The committee recognizes the National Academies, at the 
request of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), 
has completed a study that reviewed current DOT&E test 
protocols for combat helmets.
    The committee understands the study undertaken by the 
National Academies evaluated the adequacy of the Army's Combat 
Helmet test protocol for both first article testing and lot 
acceptance testing, including its use of the metrics of 
probability of no penetration and the upper tolerance limit 
used to evaluate backface deformation. The study also evaluated 
the adequacy of the current helmet testing procedures to 
determine the level of protection provided by current helmet 
performance specifications. The committee notes there appears 
to be a lack of biomedical connection between either brain 
injury and performance metrics or penetration and backface 
deformation, and no scientific basis for the choice of backface 
deformation thresholds.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a research program to develop helmet test metrics 
that have a clear scientific link to the modes of human injury 
from ballistic impact, blast, and blunt trauma. The committee 
recommends the Secretary of Defense ensure that appropriate 
threats, in particular fragmentation threats, from current and 
emerging threat profiles are used in combat helmet testing. The 
committee also expects DOT&E to consider the findings and 
recommendations in the National Academies study and make a 
determination as to whether a new or modified first article 
test protocol for combat helmets is required.

Combatant commands and science and technology Communities of Interest

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
engages in a science and technology (S&T) planning process 
known as Reliance 21, which was established to coordinate and 
reduce unwarranted duplication in service and agency S&T 
efforts. The technical groups known as Communities of Interest 
(COI) are the heart of the Reliance 21 process, and they cover 
17 technical areas. The committee recognizes that the COIs 
represent a key mechanism to assess programs, share 
information, and, when needed, to develop long-term roadmaps 
for key technology thrusts. However, the committee does not 
believe that all of the combatant commands are included in this 
COI process. Since most combatant commands have scientific 
advisers, and some have funds and authorities to carry out S&T 
programs, it appears to be an oversight for them not to be 
integrated into relevant COIs. The committee urges the 
Department to actively engage with combatant commands, such as 
Transportation Command and Cyber Command, in the S&T COIs to 
ensure their perspectives are included in current and future 
roadmapping and assessment activities.

Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office

    The budget request included $69.7 million in PE 63122DZ8 
for the Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office 
(CTTSO).
    The committee notes CTTSO's unique contributions in 
supporting the warfighter with the rapid acquisition of 
counterterrorism and irregular warfare technologies and 
capabilities. The committee supports CTTSO's unique business 
model that rapidly identifies and prioritizes Department of 
Defense requirements and conducts timely research, development, 
testing, and evaluation projects. The committee recognizes the 
important role CTTSO continues to play now and in the future 
given evolving threats from terrorism and irregular warfare 
challenges.
    The committee recommends $89.7 million, an increase of $20 
million, in 63122DZ8 for the Combating Terrorism and Technology 
Support Office.

Conference restrictions for scientists and engineers

    The committee is aware that one of the areas where the 
Department of Defense has been trying to reduce its costs has 
been in conference travel. With recent advances in 
collaboration tools, video teleconferencing, and telepresence, 
such travel can be reasonably scaled back in some areas with 
little negative impact on the workforce.
    However, the committee is concerned that blanket 
restrictions on conference travel are having an acute negative 
impact on the science and engineering workforce. The committee 
recognizes that such conferences are not just professional 
enrichment for this sector of the workforce, but are vital and 
mission-essential tools of the trade. For example, scientists 
and engineers use national and international sponsors of 
professional scientific societies to peer review their work, 
get exposed to the most recent advances in the international 
academic community, and better understand the technological 
advances of allies and adversaries alike. In addition, for many 
scientists and engineers, participation in these professional 
societies is essential for professional development in order to 
attain fellowships and recognition within their respective 
fields of endeavor. The committee is aware of anecdotal 
examples of these travel restrictions, coupled with furloughs 
and pay freezes, contributing to some members of the workforce 
leaving public service.
    The committee applauds the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics for recognizing the 
problem and issuing a memo on February 14, 2014, to clarify the 
guidance for technical and industry conferences. The committee 
urges the Under Secretary to continue to highlight this issue 
within the Department and to find appropriate mechanisms for 
tracking compliance with this guidance, and find additional 
means to support travel for the science and engineering 
workforce to attend technical conferences.

Coordination of efforts for advanced manufacturing of medical 
        countermeasures

    The committee is aware of multiple efforts in biological 
defense within several Government departments and agencies, in 
particular in the area of medical countermeasures (MCM). The 
Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) within the 
Department of Defense has begun construction on an advanced 
manufacturing center for MCM in order to address the unique 
needs of the Department of Defense for medical countermeasures. 
However, the committee is also aware that the Department of 
Health and Human Services has also made significant investments 
in constructing its own centers for advanced manufacturing. In 
general, these centers will be focused on addressing the 
requirements of the Department of Health and Human Services for 
MCM.
    In testimony before the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities on October 11, 2013, the 
principal investigator for the Texas A&M Center for Innovation 
in Advanced Development and Manufacturing, one of the 
Department of Health and Human Services centers, testified that 
those centers were fully capable of meeting all Department of 
Defense requirements for MCM advanced manufacturing. This has 
raised questions regarding the need for the Department of 
Defense to fund what appears to be a duplicative effort. The 
committee notes that while there are differences in the 
capabilities between the Department of Defense and Department 
of Health and Human Services centers, there is also a 
significant amount of overlap.
    The committee is aware that coordination on research and 
development of MCM is performed through the Public Health 
Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE), in which 
the Department of Defense is an active participant. These 
coordination efforts are laudable. However, the committee is 
aware that the PHEMCE is not directly managing the advanced 
manufacturing process and will instead rely on a separate 
governance board. In light of these facts, the committee is 
concerned that, although the Department of Defense center for 
advanced manufacturing is already designed and construction has 
begun, the ability to coordinate with and leverage the efforts 
of other Government agencies for advanced manufacturing does 
not yet appear to be fully established, and therefore, the 
possibility of inefficiency and unnecessary redundancy within 
the Department of Defense is still significant.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs 
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees 
by October 30, 2014, on the status of the coordination process 
for the advanced manufacturing of medical countermeasures 
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Health 
and Human Services. This briefing should include the following:
    (1) Details of the Department of Defense's role on the 
governance board which oversees the advanced manufacturing 
process, including frequency of meetings, level of interaction, 
etc.
    (2) The degree to which the Department of Defense is able 
to utilize the Department of Health and Human Services advanced 
manufacturing centers, including a discussion of time and cost 
savings.
    (3) Any application of best practices, lessons learned, 
etc. from past coordination efforts with the PHEMCE with 
respect to the current coordination efforts for advanced 
manufacturing.
    (4) Any obstacles to the coordination process, including 
any issues which may prohibit or impede the Department of 
Defense's ability to utilize the Department of Health and Human 
Services advanced manufacturing centers.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Spectrum Challenge

    The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA) conducted a competition in 2013 and 
2014 to develop advanced radio techniques capable of 
communicating in congested and contested electromagnetic 
environments without direct coordination or spectrum 
preplanning. This DARPA Spectrum Challenge entailed head-to-
head competitions between multiple industry and academic teams, 
including an opposing red team, in a structured testbed 
environment that required teams to compete against one another, 
as well as work cooperatively. The winning teams won prizes 
totaling $150,000, and provided valuable insight for the 
Department of Defense into possible technical solutions for 
remedying the future spectrum crunch.
    The committee applauds the creativity of DARPA in using its 
prize authority to explore novel techniques for addressing 
spectrum-sharing problems. As noted elsewhere in this report, 
the committee is aware that spectrum is a vital national 
security resource which must be actively managed to ensure 
effective and efficient use that balances competing demands 
between the services, other Federal agencies, and the private 
sector. The committee sees this sort of competition as a useful 
tool to address broader national challenges related to 
spectrum. The committee encourages the Department of Defense, 
as well as other Federal agencies, to creatively use such prize 
and challenge authorities to find innovative solutions to 
growing problems like spectrum efficiency and sharing.

Development of antibiotics against biothreats

    The committee is aware that Category A and B bacterial 
pathogens pose a significant risk to national security because 
they can be easily disseminated, result in high mortality 
rates, and require special action for public health 
preparedness. In addition to the Category A and B pathogens, 
the committee understands that there is a critical need for 
antibiotics against other highly resistant bacteria which also 
may pose a threat to the health and security of the Nation. 
These issues reinforce the committee's concern about the full 
spectrum of bacterial infectious diseases that pose significant 
threats to our military. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency 
(DTRA), together with the Chemical Biological Defense Program 
(CBDP), have the mission to safeguard the United States and its 
allies from chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and 
high-yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons of mass destruction by 
providing capabilities to reduce, eliminate, and counter the 
threat and mitigate effects. The committee recognizes that 
there are ongoing efforts within DTRA and the CBDP to develop 
antibiotics to combat these pathogens. However, the committee 
is also aware that the current austere fiscal climate will 
require these organizations to make difficult decisions 
regarding funding and priorities for a number of efforts, which 
may result in funding cuts for important research and 
development. Given the threat posed by these Category A and B 
bacterial pathogens, the committee encourages DTRA and the CBDP 
to continue research on the development of antibiotics to 
combat these pathogens.

Development of innovative detection and threat identification 
        technologies

    The committee remains concerned about credible threats 
posed by state and non-state actors in their attempts to 
acquire and weaponize chemical, biological, radiological, 
nuclear and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons of mass 
destruction (WMD) for use against the United States and its 
allies. The committee is aware that the Defense Threat 
Reduction Agency (DTRA) continues to develop and field 
technologies that reduce, counter, and eliminate the threat of 
CBRNE WMD. The committee is also aware that as part of these 
efforts, DTRA continues to invest in small lightweight, person-
portable detection equipment to detect CBRNE materials. The 
committee recognizes the importance of this equipment as 
enabling a wide range of operations within CBRNE environments, 
and therefore encourages DTRA to continue the development, 
demonstration and deployment of innovative and emerging 
detection and threat identification technologies that are 
useful across the widest-spectrum of CBRNE threats. In 
addition, the committee directs the Director of DTRA to brief 
the House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2014, on 
their efforts to advance and make operational a light-weight, 
person-portable CBRNE detection and analysis device.

Electronic warfare roadmap

    The committee recognizes the importance of electronic 
warfare (EW) technologies, both for irregular warfare 
challenges such as defeating improvised explosive devices, as 
well as for peer competitors where anti-access and area denial 
threats are paramount. As the technologies for electronic 
warfare, signals intelligence, and cyber operations 
increasingly converge, the committee believes that it will be 
important to prioritize and coordinate science and 
technological investments to maintain technological 
superiority. The committee commends service research labs and 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for making 
important EW technology investments, and recognizes the 
critical role that the Department of Defense's Reliance 21 
Communities of Interest (COI) play in identifying the critical 
technologies that will be key for the United States to maintain 
its global advantage in EW operations out to 2025. The 
committee understands that the EW COI is working on an 
electronic warfare roadmap, and looks forward to seeing that 
document to better understand where the Department will be 
making key investments across the Future Years Defense Plan.

Expeditionary airfield technology

    The committee understands that Expeditionary Airfields 
(EAF) are used by all the military services to support forward 
deployed air operations, and that EAFs have the capability to 
support all types of aircraft from all the military services in 
full spectrum operations. The committee understands the 
military services may require new EAF technology, an investment 
that could be critical to enhancing forward deployed military 
readiness in an expeditionary environment. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees not later than February 
15, 2015, on the following:
    (1) The need for expeditionary airfields in the ongoing 
threat environment;
    (2) The capacity of existing EAF technology to support 
additional air assets;
    (3) The efficacy of expeditionary airfields in mobilization 
and demobilization in theater; and
    (4) The status of development of new matting technology 
that can support additional weight and accommodate increased 
thermal load and engine blast from vertical lift aircraft.

Field-programmable gate arrays for defense

    The committee recognizes the importance of utilizing field-
programmable gated arrays (FPGAs) for defense application in 
order to allow for greater flexibility in the processing power 
of some defense applications. The committee is aware, though, 
that such capability can also introduce vulnerabilities into 
defense systems, and the Department of Defense is challenged to 
find means to mitigate those potential vulnerabilities and 
ensure a high level of trust for this class of microcircuits. 
Further, the committee notes that the prevalence of foreign 
FPGA providers makes trusted sourcing for these microcircuits 
an additional security challenge that the Department must 
address.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct 
an analysis of the Department's strategy for utilizing FPGAs 
and to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 1, 2015 on the results of the analysis. The 
briefing should address the following issues:
    (1) How FPGAs fit into both Department's microelectronics 
strategy, especially with regard to their use in both new and 
legacy systems;
    (2) How trust and security vulnerability can be mitigated 
by the Trusted Defense Systems strategy;
    (3) Any special budgeting, manpower, manufacturing or 
acquisition issues that may need to be addressed by the use and 
integration of FPGAs; and
    (4) Recommendations for how to increase utilization of 
FPGAs, and if necessary, production capacity.

Future vertical lift

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee directed the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees providing the status of the 
Department's engagement with the Vertical Lift Consortium on 
related technology requirements and development strategies for 
next-generation vertical lift aircraft.
    The committee notes that the required report was delivered 
to the congressional defense committees on May 13, 2013. The 
committee recognizes incremental improvements or upgrades to 
current Department rotorcraft will not fully meet future joint 
service operational requirements. The committee supports the 
development of future vertical lift aircraft and encourages the 
Department to expand the prototyping program to include 
vertical lift aircraft. The committee also understands that a 
key aspect of this program is the Joint Multi-Role (JMR) 
Aircraft Demonstrator. The program includes related research on 
next-generation rotors, drive trains, engines, sensors, and 
survivability. The committee encourages the Department to 
provide additional funding for this program in the fiscal year 
2016 budget request.

Guidance on utilizing non-profit research institutes

    The committee recognizes that independent, non-profit 
research institutions provide value to the research and 
development portfolios of the Department of Defense. The 
committee believes that non-profit research institutions have 
unique capabilities, experience, and infrastructure that are 
well suited to technology maturation, risk reduction, and 
transition to programs of record.
    As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, the committee is aware the Department is examining 
ways to better utilize the unique capabilities and expertise of 
non-profit research institutions, especially in the area of 
transitioning innovation to commercialization. Furthermore, the 
committee understands that the Department has been evaluating 
how to better utilize the special authorities within the 
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations in order to better 
leverage the capabilities of the non-profit research community. 
The committee is concerned that the Department has not clearly 
articulated that policy to the broader research and acquisition 
community to inform them of how they might best leverage those 
capabilities, and the special contracting authorities that 
might be used.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to issue updated policy guidance related to the use of non-
profit research institutions that clarifies their role in the 
research ecosystem, as well as the special provisions within 
the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations that support their 
use. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to 
submit the updated policy guidance to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by March 1, 
2015.

Health of the research and development enterprise

    The committee remains concerned about the long-term health 
of the Department of Defense research and development 
enterprise. There are currently 67 Department laboratories 
across 22 states, 10 federally funded research and development 
centers (FFRDCs), and 13 university affiliated research 
centers, as well as a workforce of 60,000 employees, of which 
approximately 36,400 are degreed scientists and engineers. The 
committee recognizes the pivotal role these facilities and 
people play in maintaining the technological edge of the 
Department of Defense and providing the necessary tools for the 
warfighter. The committee is concerned that the declining state 
of much of the Department of Defense lab infrastructure, 
especially compared to academic, industrial, and international 
counterparts, can also serve to dispel many of the technology 
workforce that the Department would most like to attract.
    The committee is determined to ensure that Department 
research and development capabilities remain robust in order to 
assure a vibrant and agile research and development enterprise. 
The committee is concerned that declining budgets and 
increasing threats are placing pressures on the Department that 
may lead it to make short-term decisions with long-term 
ramifications. The committee is unsure if the Department is 
striking the appropriate balance between near- and long-term 
objectives, which may negatively affect the overall health of 
the research and development enterprise.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to task the Defense Science Board to conduct an assessment of 
the organization, missions, authorities, and health of the 
defense research and development enterprise, and to submit a 
report on the findings of the assessment to the congressional 
defense committees by September 30, 2015. The assessment should 
include the following:
    (1) How well do the defense laboratories respond to the 
needs of the Department?
    (2) What mechanisms exist to refurbish and recapitalize 
Department of Defense labs, and how do those mechanisms compare 
with other Government, academic, international and industrial 
counterparts?
    (3) How well does the Department attract, recruit, retain, 
and train its workforce to remain technically current and 
flexible to respond to emerging national requirements?
    (4) Does the appropriate balance exist in each service 
between service control and laboratory director discretion so 
as to maximize laboratory mission effectiveness?

High-efficiency, conventional missile propulsion

    The committee notes that munitions to support contingency 
plans in the various combatant command areas of responsibility 
may require long-range munitions to ensure adequate penetration 
of anti-access, area-denial environments. The committee is 
aware that technology for high-efficiency, conventional missile 
propulsion subsystems necessary for such strike requirements is 
limited and may require further research and development. 
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense 
to adequately resource efforts to mature high-efficiency 
conventional missile propulsion subsystems, and directs the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services 
Committee by August 1, 2014 on current research and development 
efforts in this area.

Hypersonics research

    The committee recognizes that hypersonics technology 
represents an important game-changing technology for the 
Department of Defense. The committee is aware that the Army 
successfully tested its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon in 2011 and 
plans additional tests this year. The Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force have cooperated on 
several hypersonics programs that have advanced the state of 
knowledge on materials and flight dynamics for such high-speed 
vehicles. Additionally, the committee understands that DARPA 
and the Air Force are beginning a new program to develop a 
high-speed strike weapon that will combine the characteristics 
of hypersonic flight with precision guidance to test a tactical 
weapon system. The committee believes that as such technology 
progresses, the Department will need to examine its test 
infrastructure to determine if additional investments and 
upgrades will be necessary.
    The committee encourages the Department to continue to 
pursue advanced hypersonic technology to improve strike and 
reconnaissance capabilities, especially for denied areas. The 
committee believes that such investments are necessary to keep 
pace with foreign actors investing in similar capabilities, and 
should also examine methods for defending against hypersonic 
weapons as part of a balanced portfolio. The committee 
encourages the Department to closely monitor international 
hypersonics development efforts, as well as opportunities for 
cooperation with foreign allies. The committee applauds efforts 
such as the Hypersonic International Flight Research 
Experimentation program, which was a joint United States-
Australian initiative to advance hypersonics technology, and 
utilized shared testing facilities like the Woomera Range in 
South Australia.

Internet access on Kwajalein Atoll

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
maintains a significant presence on Kwajalein Atoll, including 
contractors and families, to support Department of Defense 
activities there. Further, the committee understands that data 
access for those families is limited to low-bandwidth phone 
modems, which can negatively impact the welfare of personnel 
and their families stationed at a remote location, where 
electronic communications are useful in maintaining personal 
and family relationships.
    Furthermore, the committee notes that the Defense 
Information Systems Agency (DISA) maintains high-bandwidth 
network connections to the Atoll, which were designed with 
additional capacity to allow for future expansions. The 
committee is also aware of instances in the past when DISA has 
provided additional networking capacity for morale, welfare and 
recreation applications through base exchanges. The committee 
believes that DISA could provide such capacity to families on 
the Atoll with minimal effort and cost. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Director, Defense Information Systems 
Agency to submit a plan to the Committee on Armed Services of 
the House of Representatives by March 15, 2015, on providing 
internet access to families on Kwajalein Atoll.

Leveraging commercial technology for directed energy

    The committee is aware of recent advances amongst the 
military services to field directed energy weapons, including 
the upcoming deployment of the Laser Weapon System onboard the 
USS Ponce by the Navy, as well as the recent testing of the 
High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator by the Army at White 
Sands Missile Range. The committee congratulates the services 
on this progress. The committee is also aware that the laser 
systems used in both of these cases are commercial off-the-
shelf industrial lasers which were purchased and modified by 
each service to be suitable for their respective military 
application. In many cases, these lasers do not provide enough 
power to achieve mission objectives, and there are several 
research and development efforts underway to develop laser 
systems which will be capable of fulfilling all mission 
requirements. However, the committee recognizes that there are 
many critical system engineering and integration problems that 
may be solved using these lower power systems in the interim, 
which will reduce both the time and cost associated with the 
deployment of directed energy systems. Therefore the committee 
encourages the Department of Defense agencies which are working 
to develop directed energy weapons to continue to examine the 
industrial base for technologies which may be utilized for 
these systems, and to leverage such technologies whenever 
possible.

Military service coordination and transition efforts for the chemical 
        biological defense program

    The Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) has the 
primary responsibility to develop technologies to protect U.S. 
troops from the threats posed by Chemical Biological 
Radiological Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) Weapons of Mass 
Destruction (WMD). The committee believes that frequent open 
communication between the CBDP and the military services is 
critical during all phases of the research, development, test, 
and evaluation (RDT&E) process for developing these 
technologies. Such communication is necessary to ensure not 
only that the warfighter requirements are being properly 
addressed in the early planning phases of the RDT&E process, 
but that the technology is transitioned to the military 
services on an adequate timescale to ensure the safety and 
protection of U.S. troops. Therefore, the committee encourages 
the CBDP to continue to improve its communication with the 
military services during all phases of the RDT&E process.
    In addition, the committee remains concerned about the 
level of protection currently available to U.S. troops who are 
at risk of being exposed to CBRNE WMD, in particular with 
regards to mission-oriented protective posture (MOPP) gear. The 
committee is concerned that in many cases the equipment 
available to the military units may be outdated or inadequate 
to address current requirements. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, 
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs to provide a briefing 
to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2014, 
on the coordination between the military services and the CBDP. 
The briefing should include details on the process by which the 
CBDP solicits and incorporates input from the military services 
into its planning and prioritization of RDT&E efforts, as well 
as the current plans and efforts to transition the resultant 
technology, including MOPP gear for CBRNE environments to the 
military services.

Minority science and technology programs

    The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has 
been working for many years to strengthen its role with 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and 
Minority Serving Institutions (MIs), which not only support a 
broad range of research, but also creates a diverse pool of 
talented scientists and engineers that can support academic, 
industrial, and federal research needs. The committee also 
commends the Department for expanding partnerships with non-
profit organizations (NPO) that have a history of providing 
scholarship, mentoring, and career advancement support to 
minorities pursuing science and technology careers consistent 
with Department mission and needs. The committee applauds the 
former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering for issuing guidance in December 2011 to 
reinvigorate the Department's relationship with HBCU/MIs. In 
particular, this memo reiterated that ``[t]hese institutions 
offer a talented science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) workforce that can benefit the research and 
educational efforts of the DoD and the nation.'' This memo 
focused on four areas of focus for action, including 
information collection to:
    (1) Develop and maintain statistics on HBCU/MI success 
rates in response to competitive funding opportunities under 
broad agency announcements and other solicitations;
    (2) Ensure that HBCU/MIs are made of aware of the 
opportunity for participation in all Department of Defense 
sponsored activities that invite participation of institutions 
of higher education;
    (3) Encourage the use of Inter-governmental Personnel Act 
agreements or other personnel-detail mechanisms with HBCU/MIs;
    (4) Ensure that emphasis is placed on recruiting and 
selecting HBCU/MI faculty to serve on Department of Defense 
STEM scholarship, fellowship, and research review panels and 
HBCU/MI students are informed of and encouraged to apply to 
STEM scholarship, fellowship, and internship programs.
    The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Research and Engineering to provide a briefing to the House 
Armed Services Committee by December 15, 2014 on the measures 
and metrics used by the Department to better understand how the 
Department is fulfilling the guidance from the December 2011 
memo. In addition to demonstrating the Department's progress 
against the four goals above, this briefing should also examine 
what minority science and technology workforce, professional 
development, and technical assistance programs exist that could 
benefit from increased participation with HBCU/Mls, as well as 
what non-profit organizations exist that have a history of 
assisting minorities and HBCU/minority-serving institutions in 
expanding their participation in Department of Defense 
programs, including the leveraging of both Defense and NPO 
scholarship funds to achieve these purposes.

Multi-aircraft control of unmanned aerial vehicles

    The committee is aware of the enabling effects of employing 
large quantities of unmanned aerial vehicles on the 
battlefield. However, the availability of pilots, and the costs 
associated with training and employing pilots, has in some 
cases limited the ability of the Department of Defense to mass 
and capitalize on these capabilities.
    Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the congressional defense committees with a report by 
February 15, 2015 detailing the Department of Defense's plans 
to operationally test and deploy multi-aircraft control 
technology. This report shall include a breakdown of the 
efforts of each of the services along with the Department of 
Defense's plan to integrate those efforts between the services 
in order to minimize inefficiencies. The report shall also 
address advanced technology development and experimentation as 
well as the potential manpower savings of multi-aircraft 
control.

Multi-mission airborne radio frequency systems for unmanned aerial 
        systems

    The committee is aware that unmanned aerial systems (UAS) 
are increasingly important in intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) missions. The committee also notes that 
while the use of multiple-input multiple-output systems is 
ubiquitous in commercial and some Department of Defense 
applications, it is largely absent in various Department of 
Defense airborne systems due to technological and operational 
challenges. The committee is aware that there is ongoing 
development of airborne radio frequency (RF) systems that could 
potentially improve the operation of airborne platforms, 
provide more robust anti-jamming capability, enable and enhance 
information collection and sensing of the operating 
environment, and incur minimum RF footprint to ensure a low 
probability of interception.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to 
leverage existing research and development to develop advanced, 
multi-mission, multi-antenna RF systems for UAS that will 
significantly enhance ISR capabilities in tactical networks 
resulting in improved mission success.

National Defense Education Program

    The budget request contained $45.5 million in PE 61120D8Z 
for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP) for the 
purposes of attracting, engaging, and developing current and 
future generations of science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) talent to benefit the Department of Defense. 
Of this amount, no funds were requested for pre-kindergarten-
to-12th grade (PK-12) STEM outreach programs.
    The committee cannot stress enough that the recruitment, 
retention and development of an experienced, technical 
workforce is a critical national security requirement for the 
Department of Defense and that these efforts must start at the 
earliest stages of the STEM pipeline. The committee also 
stresses that growth in STEM fields is important for the 
general economic health and competitiveness of the nation, but 
due to the special security requirements of Department of 
Defense employees, this need is especially acute.
    The committee understands that as the demand for a diverse, 
highly skilled scientific and technical military and civilian 
defense workforce grows, the Department will need to continue 
to invest in strengthening local defense communities by 
enhancing student engagement in STEM initiatives that support 
the Department's research areas. The committee understands that 
NDEP K-12:
    (1) Builds student interest in STEM fields and disciplines 
and in careers specific to the Department;
    (2) Develops defense-relevant science, engineering, and 
mathematics skills; and
    (3) Provides a future talent pool to fulfill the 
Department's demand for highly skilled STEM professionals by 
increasing access to authentic STEM experiences.
    The committee recommends $55.5 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 61120D8Z for the National Defense 
Education Program. Of these funds, the committee recommends 
$45.5 million, the requested amount for the SMART; and $10.0 
million for PK-12 STEM outreach programs, an increase of $10.0 
million. Of the funds requested for PK-12, the committee 
recommends the Department use some of the funds to carry out 
STEM activities that will support school districts with high 
concentrations of military dependent families. Such activities 
should include a focus on increasing teacher effectiveness as 
well as student achievement. The committee also believes that 
such outreach activities should look at opportunities to 
support the development of a cyber focused skill sets.

Neuroplasticity research partnerships

    The committee is aware of advancements in neuroplasticity 
research made by university and non-governmental rehabilitation 
hospitals that have collaborated to maximize what can be 
learned regarding the brain's ability to develop and recover 
when it has become damaged. The committee encourages the 
Department of Defense's medical research and development 
organizations to establish research programs with university 
systems and non-governmental rehabilitation hospitals that have 
partnered in order to develop rapid and innovative outcomes in 
the treatment of service members with traumatic brain injury 
that may lead to efficiencies in restoring brain recovery and 
neurological function.

Optics and photonics for defense applications

    The committee is aware of and recognizes the unique roles 
optics and photonics play in our Nation's security, including 
everything from information technology and communications to 
medicine and advanced manufacturing. The committee understands 
the United States has been the world pioneer in transitioning 
optics and photonics research to national security 
applications. Department of Defense contributions have been 
pivotal in laying the foundation of those capabilities, from 
early investments in lasers to the development of medical free 
electronic lasers for military photomedicine applications.
    The committee also understands that increased competition 
has put America's leadership position at risk. Further, the 
committee is aware that the administration is attempting to 
address some of these competitiveness issues by creating a 
number of advanced manufacturing centers, and has expressed the 
intent in the fiscal year 2015 budget request to fund three to 
five additional centers.
    The committee recognizes that the National Academy of 
Sciences report, ``Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies 
for Our Nation,'' emphasizes these findings. For example, among 
its other findings, it noted:
    (1) The federal government should develop an integrated 
initiative in photonics that seeks to bring together academic, 
industrial, and government researchers, managers, and policy 
makers to develop a more integrated approach to managing 
industrial and government photonics research and development 
spending and related investments;
    (2) ``The U.S. government, and specifically the Department 
of Defense, should strive toward harmonizing optics with 
silicon-based electronics to provide a new, readily accessible 
and usable, integrated electronics and optics platform'';
    (3) The U.S. defense and intelligence agencies should fund 
the development of optical technologies to support future 
optical systems capable of wide-area surveillance, exquisite 
long-range object identification, high-bandwidth free-space 
laser communication, ``speed-of-light'' laser strike, and 
defense against both missile seekers and ballistic missiles; 
and
    (4) ``The United States should aggressively develop 
additive manufacturing technology and implementation.''
    Recognizing these imperatives, the committee encourages the 
Department to consider the establishment of a National Center 
for Optics and Photonics within its manufacturing mandate. The 
committee believes that doing so would allow the Department to 
create new opportunities for innovation, which will benefit the 
Department on multiple fronts. Specifically, the committee is 
interested in technological and manufacturing advances that a 
National Center for Optics and Photonics could make in critical 
defense applications such as advanced lasers, advanced optical 
materials, data storage, communication technologies, and 
sensors.

Prosthesis research

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
made significant investments in research for next generation 
prostheses, particularly for upper and lower extremities. With 
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan winding down 
and current fiscal constraints on the defense budget, the 
committee is concerned that the Department will begin to move 
away from this area of research in favor of new topics for a 
new security environment, leaving a void in this area. The 
committee notes that while medical advances have dramatically 
increased the survival rates of the warfighter, it has also 
dramatically increased the number of wounded warriors requiring 
intense, long-term therapeutic care. The committee urges the 
Department of Defense to continue pushing the technical bounds 
of regenerative medicine and prostheses, including the 
development and refinement of new modalities for control of 
neurological implants, in order to maintain its commitment to 
the care and welfare of the wounded warrior community and their 
families.

Redesigned Kill Vehicle for Homeland Missile Defense

    The budget request contained $1.0 billion in PE 63882C for 
the Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment. Of 
this amount, $99.5 million was requested for Improved Homeland 
Defense (HLD) Interceptors development, which the committee 
will refer to as the Redesigned Kill Vehicle.
    The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) 
fiscal year 2015 budget overview documents state that the 
budget request supports the initiation of the ``redesign of the 
Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) for GMD [Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense]. The redesigned EKV will be built with a 
modular, open architecture and designed with common interfaces 
and standards, making upgrades easier and broadening our vendor 
and supplier base. The redesigned EKV will increase performance 
to address the evolving threat; improve reliability, 
availability, maintainability, testability and producibility; 
and increase in-flight communications to improve usage of off-
board sensors information and situational awareness to 
combatant commanders for enabling new tactics such as shoot-
assess-shoot.'' The committee expects the redesign will also 
maintain the capability for the future modernization path for 
the common kill vehicle phase II efforts that should achieve 
the long-sought ``volume kill'' capability.
    The committee has long believed that a new kill vehicle is 
required for the homeland missile defense system, mindful of 
the termination of one such modernization program in 2009, the 
Multiple Kill Vehicle. For example, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
directed the Director, MDA to develop a long-term plan for the 
exo-atmospheric kill vehicle. And, again, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) 
directed a plan, and authorized funding, for the development of 
an upgraded, enhanced exo-atmospheric kill vehicle for the GMD 
system that, ``is capable of being deployed during fiscal year 
2018.'' The committee expects the Director to proceed with the 
development, test, acquisition, and deployment of the 
redesigned kill vehicle as directed in that Act.
    The committee recommends $99.5 million, the full amount of 
the budget request, in PE 63882C for the Redesigned Kill 
Vehicle.

Space weather events research

    The committee notes the value of the advice to the 
Department of Defense, including the Department of the Air 
Force and the Department of the Navy, for the pursuit of space 
weather research and is aware of space weather impacts to the 
electric power grid, global satellite communications, global 
positioning system positioning and timing, space situational 
awareness, and potential loss or degradation of these 
capabilities. The committee is aware of the importance of 
observations and research of space weather phenomena to monitor 
and predict potential damage to the U.S. military and to 
protect national technological infrastructure. The committee is 
also aware that insufficient coordination and sharing among the 
agencies could lead to duplication of effort and less effective 
allocation of limited resources for this critical research. The 
committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense coordinate 
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 
National Science Foundation to provide necessary observations 
and support for research that will lead to reliable forecasts 
of significant space weather events.

Special Operations developmental efforts for Tactical Assault Light 
        Operator Suit

    The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 1160402BB, 
Special Operations Technology Development, and $7.5 million in 
PE 1160402BB, Special Operations Special Technology, to support 
ongoing developmental efforts for the U.S. Special Operations 
Command (USSOCOM) Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit (TALOS), 
designed to improve operator survivability in direct action or 
kinetic environments.
    The committee notes that more than $4.5 million of fiscal 
year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 Major Force Program-11 funding 
has been put towards TALOS efforts thus far. The committee also 
notes that despite aggressive marketing efforts by USSOCOM, 
TALOS is not a program of record, but rather ``an overarching 
vision'' that provides ``a coordinating focus for many of 
USSOCOM's science and technology efforts spanning multiple 
capability areas.'' The committee understands that present 
efforts are being used to survey current technologies and to 
better inform future requirements documents, and that USSOCOM 
intends to deliver a fully functional prototype assault suit by 
August 2018.
    The committee is concerned that these requirements are not 
being properly coordinated with related or complementary 
efforts at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) and the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Command. While 
USSOCOM is the proper authority to define Special Operations 
Forces peculiar requirements, it may not be the appropriate 
entity to lead such developmental technology efforts, like 
TALOS. While the committee understands that Natick Soldier 
Systems Command is currently developing and partially funding 
one of the two Generation I prototypes for USSOCOM, the 
committee is concerned that USSOCOM is also funding outside 
private sector research, and that overall efforts lack proper 
coordination and oversight, systems integration and 
collaboration, and prototype evaluation.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to brief the congressional defense committees by August 1, 
2014, on the TALOS project and similar efforts to include: (1) 
the overall TALOS requirement for U.S. Special Operations 
Forces, including requirements validation; (2) a list of funded 
activities for fiscal years 2013-14, as well as planned 
activities for fiscal year 2015 and beyond, including efforts 
through DARPA, Natick Soldier Systems Command, the other 
military services, the Rapid Innovation Fund, and industry; (3) 
coordination efforts undertaken with USSOCOM, DARPA, Natick 
Soldier Systems Command and other similar ongoing research and 
development activities; (4) project timelines including the 
development of prototypes and anticipated funding; (5) any 
other developmental efforts underway that could satisfy USSOCOM 
TALOS-like requirements, and (6) any other items the Secretary 
of Defense deems appropriate.

Special Operations Forces Survival, Support, and Equipment Systems 
        Program Management Office

    The committee is aware of the research and development 
(R&D) contributions of the Special Operations Forces Survival, 
Support and Equipment Systems (SOF-SSES) Program Management 
Office. These R&D efforts focus on improving personal 
protective and individual support equipment as well as life 
support and tactical combat casualty care for the warfighter 
within the U.S. Special Operations Forces. The committee 
recognizes the importance of these efforts for the sustainment 
of the readiness and superiority of the Special Operations 
Forces (SOF), as well as for the continued successful 
completion of SOF missions. The committee encourages the U.S. 
Special Operations Command to continue to maintain the 
appropriate level of funding in order to sustain these 
important efforts within the SOF-SSES Program Management 
Office.

Technologies to improve spectrum efficiency

    The committee is aware that spectrum is a vital national 
security resource which must be actively managed to ensure 
effective and efficient use that balances competing demands 
between the military services, other Federal agencies and the 
private sector. In the committee report accompanying the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(H. Rept. 110-652), the committee noted its concern over the 
availability of spectrum for defense applications and the 
increasing scarcity imposed by additional spectrum auctions and 
competition with commercial wireless providers. For this 
reason, the committee is pleased that the Department of Defense 
has recently issued an Electromagnetic Spectrum Strategy to 
provide more strategic guidance to shape the future of the 
Department's spectrum operations. As noted in the new strategy, 
``[the Department of Defense] must act now to ensure access to 
the congested and contested electromagnetic environment of the 
future. Specifically, the Department must adapt how it acquires 
and uses spectrum resources. Our approach must include 
acquiring more efficient, flexible, and adaptable systems while 
developing more agile and opportunistic spectrum operations to 
ensure that our forces can complete their missions.''
    The committee is also aware that this strategy is the first 
step in a longer process to develop a roadmap and action plan 
to inform future actions and resourcing. In addition, the 
committee believes that the Department needs to identify 
opportunities where it should focus research and development 
efforts to address any technological gaps, or where additional 
testing for commercial technologies may be needed to integrate 
into defense systems.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Chief Information 
Officer of the Department of Defense to brief the House 
Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2015, on the status 
of the associated Spectrum Roadmap and Action Plan, as well as 
a science and technology roadmap for technologies that are 
needed to improve spectrum efficiency.

Three-dimensional integrated circuits

    The committee is aware that the changing market dynamics of 
the microelectronics industry have led the Department of 
Defense from being a market driver to a market follower. Except 
in some highly advanced sectors requiring especially high 
levels of trust, the Department will most likely be highly 
dependent on outside market forces to supply its 
microelectronics needs. For example, newly emerging technology 
like three-dimensional (3D) integrated circuits (IC) are an 
important technology that the Department will need to 
understand and monitor in the future. Such complex, multi-layer 
chips will provide new useful functionality, but also make 
detection of supply chain vulnerabilities more difficult to 
detect than traditional ICs.
    In a report provided to the committee, the Department 
indicated that there was a highly competitive supplier network 
and sufficient domestic capacity for 3D ICs, but that there 
were also ``impressive capabilities for 3D ICs being developed 
and implemented overseas . . . largely through the support of 
foreign government investments.'' The report also stated that, 
``While there does not appear to be an immediate need for 
creating any new domestic 3D IC manufacturing capabilities for 
defense applications, making better use of the existing 
domestic capability could be very beneficial for maintaining 
DOD [Department of Defense] technology leadership and to avoid 
surprises from potential adversaries.'' The committee urges the 
Department to closely monitor developments with 3D ICs, not 
only to leverage rapidly evolving commercial capabilities for 
its own uses, but also to understand how potential adversaries 
use these technologies.

U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation

    The budget request contained $96.8 million in PE 63913C for 
Israeli Cooperative Programs in missile defense for fiscal year 
2015. Of this amount, $10.7 million was requested for the 
Israeli Arrow program, $54.4 million for the Israeli Upper Tier 
program (also known as Arrow III), and $31.7 million for the 
Israeli Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense program (also 
known as David's Sling Weapons System (DSWS)).
    The committee supports these cooperative programs and is 
pleased with the record of success seen over the past year. For 
example, on January 3, 2014, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 
and the Israeli Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) 
successfully completed a flight test of the Arrow 3 Interceptor 
missile over the Mediterranean Sea. This test was an important 
step towards fielding an additional layer of defense, with exo-
atmospheric capability, against ballistic missile threats to 
the State of Israel. Additionally, on November 20, 2013, MDA 
and IMDO successfully conducted an intercept test using the 
DSWS. This second intercept test of DSWS continues to prove out 
the lower-tier capability Israel and the United States have 
cooperatively developed for the defense of Israel.
    The committee continues to support these cooperative 
programs being mindful of the January 29, 2014, Annual Threat 
Assessment testimony of the Director of National Intelligence 
before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that, ``Iran 
already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the 
Middle East.''
    The committee is also mindful of section 8070 of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (division C of 
Public Law 113-76), which noted that of the $149.7 million 
provided for the DSWS, $15.0 million was provided for 
production of its interceptors in the United States and in 
Israel. Given the significant ongoing U.S. taxpayer investment, 
the committee supports co-production of these programs, and the 
committee expects to be regularly updated on the implementation 
of these appropriated funds.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee addresses the Iron 
Dome system.
    The committee recommends $268.8 million, an increase of 
$172.0 million, in PE 63913C for Israeli Cooperative Programs.

Vaccine research for equine encephalitis

    The committee is aware that equine encephalitis is a 
serious health hazard with potentially fatal consequences that 
is prevalent in North, Central and South America, as well as 
the Caribbean. Because equine encephalitis is naturally 
occurring, but has also been investigated as a potential 
biological weapon, the Department of Defense is developing a 
vaccine for equine encephalitis that remains in Investigational 
New Drug Status. The committee also notes that while equine 
encephalitis is a high priority for the development of medical 
countermeasures for the Department of Defense, it has not been 
a priority for the Department of Health and Human Services due 
to the relatively small number of occurrences within the 
continental United States. The committee acknowledges that such 
an investigational new drug might have application for the 
civilian population, but the process for making a determination 
to use these vaccines in cases of civilian emergency is not 
well defined.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
by December 31, 2014, on the coordination between the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human 
Services through the Public Health Emergency Medical 
Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE). This briefing should 
discuss the mechanisms by which medical countermeasures, which 
are developed by the Department of Defense could be made 
available to the civilian population should the need arise, 
with emphasis on vaccines that may only exist in the Department 
of Defense stockpile. The briefing should also include any 
obstacles to employing such a process.

Validation of near-term counter-electronics capability

    The committee is aware that the Air Force and the 
Department of Defense completed a Joint Concept Technology 
Demonstration (JCTD) for a high-powered microwave cruise 
missile in 2012. The Counter-electronics High power microwave 
Missile Project (CHAMP) JCTD demonstrated a multi-shot and 
multi-pulse high power microwave warhead integrated into an 
existing cruise missile which is capable of delivering low-
collateral damage attacks against electronic systems in 
facilities. The committee understands that such systems still 
require development to provide capabilities in a small form-
factor and in a reusable platform, as well as additional 
modeling and simulation to better characterize effects and 
battle damage assessment.
    Furthermore, the committee is aware that the Air Force is 
conducting an analysis of alternatives to determine if there is 
a need to develop a program of record for an enduring 
capability that would refine the technology demonstrated during 
the CHAMP JCTD, or look at other technologies to provide non-
kinetic counter-electronic effects. As noted in Section 267 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66), CHAMP (or a variant thereof) ``should be 
considered among the options for a possible materiel solution 
in response to any near-term joint urgent operational need, 
joint emerging operational need, or combatant command 
integrated priority for a non-kinetic counter-electronic 
system.''
    Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the combatant commanders, 
to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by 
February 15, 2015 on the need for a near-term counter-
electronics capability. This briefing should examine the 
combatant command integrated priority lists for each of the 
geographic and functional combatant commands to determine if 
there is an urgent or emerging need for CHAMP or a similar 
system that should be addressed within the next two to three 
years. If such needs exist, the briefing should also include a 
determination of whether or not a joint urgent operational need 
statement, or a joint emerging operational need statement, will 
be submitted by the affected combatant commands.

Vapor compression cooling systems technology

    The committee notes that the majority of Department of 
Defense electronic systems intended for field use in harsh 
environments use thermoelectric cooling technology and that 
this method of cooling is often required in Department of 
Defense requests for proposals. The committee also notes that 
vapor compression electronic cooling technology may provide 
cooling systems that are smaller, more energy efficient, cost 
effective and reliable than the legacy systems.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than June 1, 
2015, addressing where vapor compression thermal management 
systems may best be used in remote or mobile applications to 
cool electronics. The report should include, at a minimum, the 
process used to identify specific programs where these thermal 
management systems could be appropriate and examples of 
programs using deployed electronics that have effectively used 
vapor compression thermal management systems.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $167.7 million for operational 
test and evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $172.7 
million, an increase of $5.0 million to the budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 
operational test and evaluation, Defense program are identified 
in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Information Assurance and Interoperability Program

    The committee is aware that the Director for Operational 
Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) is responsible for the Information 
Assurance (IA) and Interoperability Program (IOP), which 
provides assessments of services and combatant command systems, 
networks, and procedures during training and exercise venues. 
The committee believes cyber-range capabilities which are 
beginning to be used in such assessments may also be employed 
to assess the cybersecurity and interoperability of acquisition 
systems during development and prior to fielding. The committee 
further believes that for many acquisition programs, having 
low-cost access to cyber-range environments that can replicate 
the characteristics of systems and their operational network 
could provide a safe and repeatable means to conduct more 
rigorous IA/IOP testing during development than is currently 
being done.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense Chief 
Information Officer and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to work closely with 
major program offices, cyber ranges, and the DOT&E to identify 
such environments and develop opportunities to conduct early 
IA/IOP testing of those systems during development. The 
committee believes that earlier and closer cooperation can go a 
long way to better position programs for successful IA/IOP 
performance in operational tests and in the field.

Program reporting and metrics on penetration testing

    The committee is aware that programs with significant 
software components often conduct a variety of red teaming and 
penetration testing to determine if there are cyber 
vulnerabilities that might be exploited by sophisticated 
adversaries. The committee is also aware that the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 
and the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation are 
revising policies to ensure that such testing becomes a 
mandatory best practice. However, the committee is also aware 
that no mechanism exists to provide periodic follow-up to 
revisit testing to determine if the program has made any effort 
at remediation. The committee encourages the Department of 
Defense's acquisition and cyber authorities to develop some 
sort of report card for programs to track their progress when 
it comes to penetration testing and remediation to ensure 
security requirements are not being ignored or given short 
shrift when the pressures of budget, schedule, and performance 
come into conflict. The committee believes that such measures 
could be incorporated into existing reporting requirements, 
such as the Selected Acquisition Reports.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


              Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize appropriations for research, 
development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in 
section 4201 of division D of this Act.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


    Section 211--Preliminary Design Review of Presidential Aircraft 
                        Recapitalization Program

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to complete a preliminary design review of the Presidential 
Aircraft Recapitalization program prior to receiving a 
milestone B approval from the Milestone Decision Authority.

  Section 212--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Armored Multi-
                        Purpose Vehicle Program

    This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds 
to not more than 80 percent for the Armored Multi-Purpose 
Vehicle (AMPV) program until the Secretary of the Army submits 
a report to the congressional defense committees on the Army's 
plan to eventually replace all M-113 Armored Personal Carriers 
(APC) within Echelons-Above-Brigade (EAB) formations.
    The committee notes that in 2007, the Army identified the 
M-113 APC for replacement due to its inadequate survivability 
and force protection. The committee further notes that in the 
committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and in the 
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee 
provided numerous options for consideration by the Army to 
accelerate the AMPV program. The committee understands that the 
Army has released a Request for Proposal for the Echelons-
Below-Brigade (EBB) requirement which is focused on 
survivability shortfalls within the Armor Brigade Combat Team. 
The committee continues to support the AMPV program and expects 
the Army to conduct the competition in accordance with Federal 
Acquisition Regulations.
    However, the committee is concerned that although the 
Army's current plan addresses a critical shortfall within EBB 
formations, there is currently no plan to address the 
survivability shortfalls within Echelons-Above-Brigade 
formations. The committee understands that there are 
approximately 2,000 M-113's within existing EAB formations.
    In addition, the committee notes that on at least one 
occasion, an Armor Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) deployed to the 
Republic of Iraq with Stryker Medical Evacuation Vehicles. 
Therefore, this section would also require the Secretary of the 
Army to include as part of the report, an assessment for the 
feasibility of incorporating medical wheeled variants within 
the ABCT.

 Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Unmanned Carrier-
            Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from 
awarding a contract for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne 
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system air vehicle segment 
until the Secretary of Defense completes a UCLASS requirements 
review and provides the results of that review to the 
congressional defense committees.

     Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Airborne 
                         Reconnaissance Systems

    This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of 
funds to not more than 25 percent for the imaging and targeting 
support of airborne reconnaissance systems, until the Secretary 
of the Air Force delivers a report to the congressional defense 
committees and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the Senate. The elements of the report would 
include a detailed plan regarding using such funds for fiscal 
year 2015, and a strategic plan for the funding of advanced 
airborne reconnaissance technologies supporting manned and 
unmanned systems.
    The committee notes that the Air Force did not provide 
substantive information for the proposed use of these funds, 
aside from the general area of imaging and targeting support.

Section 215--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Weather Satellite 
                            Follow-On System

    This section would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to 
place the last remaining satellite of the Defense 
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) on the launch manifest 
for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. 
Additionally, this section would direct the Secretary to 
establish an additional launch, for acquisition in fiscal year 
2015, under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program using 
full and open competition among certified providers. The 
Secretary would have the flexibility to determine the 
appropriate satellite launch to be competed.
    This section would also limit 75 percent of the funds 
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 
available for fiscal year 2015 for the weather satellite 
follow-on system until the Secretary submits to the 
congressional defense committees the plan to meet the 
meteorological and oceanographic collection requirements 
validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. The plan 
must include how the Secretary will launch and use existing 
assets of the DMSP; how the Secretary will use other sources of 
data, such as civil, commercial satellite weather data, and 
international partnerships, to meet such requirements; an 
explanation of the relevant costs and schedule; and the 
requirements of the weather satellite follow-on system.

   Section 216--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Space-Based 
                Infrared Systems Space Data Exploitation

    This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds 
to not more than 50 percent for the data exploitation under the 
Space-Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) space modernization 
initiative, which funds modernization and evolution of 
technologies to meet the SBIRS mission, until the Secretary of 
the Air Force delivers a certification to the congressional 
defense committees. The Secretary would be required to certify 
that the limited funds available for this effort will be used 
in support of data exploitation of the current SBIRS program of 
record, including the scanning and staring sensor; or that the 
data from the current SBIRS program of record, including the 
scanning and starring sensor, is being fully exploited and no 
further efforts are warranted.
    The committee is concerned that the Air Force is not 
focusing on developing the capabilities to fully exploit the 
data from the existing SBIRS program. During the fiscal year 
2014 budget request hearing for national security space 
activities, the Commander of Air Force Space Command was asked 
about SBIRS exploitation and responded that, ``We have not even 
scratched the surface, I think, of the potential that's there. 
We have another sensor that we haven't fully exploited yet as 
part of that satellite. We're doing a good job on the scanning 
sensor. The staring sensor, which has much better fidelity, we 
really haven't fully wrung out yet, because we've been so 
focused on getting the scanning sensor calibrated and 
certified.'' The committee supports the Commander of the Air 
Force Space Command's stated comments, and encourages the Air 
Force to focus on achieving full performance and exploitation 
of SBIRS.

Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Hosted Payload and 
     Wide Field of View Testbed of the Space-Based Infrared Systems

    This section would limit 50 percent of the funds authorized 
to be appropriated by this Act for hosted payloads and wide 
field of view testbed alternative approaches to the Space-Based 
Infrared Systems program of record until completion of the 
ongoing analysis of alternatives (AOA). The funding would also 
be limited until 60 days following a briefing to the 
congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence 
committees on the AOA findings and recommendations of the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. Strategic 
Command, including a cost evaluation of the Director of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation. The limitation would not 
apply to efforts to examine and develop technology insertion 
opportunities for the program of record.

Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Protected Tactical 
 Demonstration and Protected Military Satellite Communications Testbed 
            of the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Program

    This section would limit 50 percent of the funds authorized 
to be appropriated by this Act for protected tactical 
demonstration and protected military satellite communications 
testbed alternative approaches to the Advanced Extremely High 
Frequency program of record until completion of the ongoing 
analysis of alternatives (AOA). The funding would also be 
limited until 60 days following a briefing to the congressional 
defense committees on the AOA findings and recommendations of 
the Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. 
Strategic Command, including a cost evaluation of the Director 
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. The limitation would 
not apply to efforts to examine and develop technology 
insertion opportunities for the program of record.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


  Section 221--Revision to the Service Requirement under the Science, 
 Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense Education Program

    This section would amend subparagraph (B) of section 
2192a(c)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by modifying the 
service obligation requirement to also include employment with 
a public or private sector entity or organization outside the 
Department of Defense if the Secretary of Defense determines 
that employment of the person with such entity or organization 
for the purpose of such obligated service would provide a 
benefit to the Department of Defense.

   Section 222--Revision of Requirement for Acquisition Programs to 
               Maintain Defense Research Facility Records

    This section would modify the requirements of subsection 
(b) of section 2364 of title 10, United States Code, to 
eliminate the need for acquisition programs to maintain a 
record of all issue papers from a defense research facility 
related to said acquisition programs.

Section 223--Modification to Cost-sharing Requirement for Pilot Program 
     to Include Technology Protection Features during Research and 
                 Development of Certain Defense Systems

    This section would amend Section 243(b) of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) by striking ``at least one half of the cost of 
such activities' and inserting ``an appropriate share of the 
cost of such activities, as determined by the Secretary''.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    While the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (division A of 
Public Law 113-67) and the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) made notable progress 
in restoring critical levels of military readiness to more 
acceptable levels, challenges to full-spectrum readiness remain 
in fiscal year 2015. Department of Defense officials have 
highlighted persistent shortfalls in almost every area of 
operation and maintenance, the main funding component for force 
readiness, stating that, ``despite progress in buying back lost 
readiness, current resources force a compromise of future and 
non-deployed readiness to support today's forward operations. 
This has led to increased risk in the military departments' 
ability to meet new requirements or additional rotations that 
are beyond the scope of their currently planned training and 
deployment requirements.''
    To continue reducing risk and improving the readiness of 
the force, the bill would authorize additional budget authority 
for multiple unfunded priorities of the military departments, 
to include the restoration of funding for operational tempo, 
flying hour programs, facilities sustainment, and depot 
maintenance. The bill would also authorize additional budget 
authority for readiness initiatives such as corrosion 
prevention, control, and mitigation.
    The Army has been in a state of continuous war for the past 
13 years, the longest in the Nation's history. The Army also 
supports operations and worldwide requirements with more than 
168,000 soldiers deployed or forward stationed in nearly 150 
countries. This high operational tempo and a primary focus on 
counterinsurgency operations, coupled with tighter budgets, 
sequestration, and a shrinking force, will continue to 
challenge the Army's ability to provide a sufficient number of 
Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) trained for decisive action, an 
issue that must be addressed. While facing this challenge the 
Army must also find a way to reset and reconstitute the force, 
responsibly draw down operations in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, and fully develop its role under the Defense 
Strategic Guidance. The Army must also find a way to keep the 
National Guard and the Army Reserve as viable components of the 
total Army.
    The Navy has experienced 13-plus years of sustained combat 
operations, the last seven of which have seen a significant 
part of the force operating above a tempo level that is 
sustainable for the long term, and this elevated pace of 
operations is expected to persist in light of the combatant 
commander demand for maritime assets. The stress induced by 
this demanding operational tempo is reflected in a gradual, but 
persistent, decline in fleet readiness for non-deployed forces. 
Fiscal challenges and a limited budget continue to create 
backlogs for Navy maintenance, specifically in aircraft 
maintenance, and fiscal instabilities have resulted in de-
scoped ship maintenance availabilities from the previous fiscal 
year. When coupled with the impacts of the sustained surge, 
which has taxed both equipment and personnel at rates 
significantly higher than anticipated, the tenuous progress the 
Navy has made over the past 2 years to reverse degraded surface 
fleet material readiness is threatened.
    Despite slight improvements in Marine Corps readiness 
levels resulting from the ongoing drawdown of forces in 
Afghanistan, the Marine Corps will continue to be challenged in 
meeting global commitments, reconstituting the force, and 
sustaining high operational tempo as it downsizes to 182,000 
personnel and faces a dramatic increase in demand for Marine 
capabilities around the world. In particular, the Marine Corps 
will be challenged to meet new crisis response force presence 
demands in Europe, South America, and the Middle East in 
support of Department of State and Department of Defense 
missions as well as the expansion of critical legacy missions 
such as the Marine Security Guard program, which is slated to 
grow at an increasing number of high-risk embassies.
    The Air Force is still slowly recovering from the recent 
impacts of sequestration which led to one-third of Air Force 
fighter and bomber squadrons standing down, curtailment of 
training and lost qualifications, and adverse impacts on 
officer development. The Air Force's recovery will remain 
challenged with high operational tempo beyond the end of major 
combat operations in Afghanistan. The committee is concerned 
about Air Force estimates that it will be approximately 2023 
before the Air Force fully recovers and operational risk is 
adequately addressed. The committee is concerned about the 
recovery of the Air Force, as its Flying Hour Program is 
currently operating at full capacity, leaving no ability to 
buy-down current backlogs in training.
    The operation and maintenance funding authorized by this 
title seeks to address many of these areas of concern. It 
addresses depleted force readiness levels and related high 
levels of assumed risk and makes several requests of the 
Department of Defense to report on plans to address acutely 
challenged areas and return the force to full-spectrum 
readiness.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                       Budget Request Adjustments


                   Base Realignment and Closure 2018

    The budget request included $4.8 million, in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support a request to conduct a 
new round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to align 
infrastructure with planned force structure changes. The 
requested funds would be used to develop recommendations and to 
manage BRAC efforts.
    The committee recommends no funds to support the 
development of infrastructure recommendations prepared in the 
context of a new BRAC authorization.

                          Corrosion Prevention

    The committee commends the Department of Defense on the 
formulation of policy and guidance to address corrosion, which 
costs the military departments more than $20.0 billion annually 
and leads to decreased readiness, increased manpower 
requirements, and significantly higher life-cycle sustainment 
costs. However, despite addressing the issue in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), the 
committee is concerned about the pace of acquisition of proven 
anti-corrosion products and the resulting impacts on 
sustainment costs. The committee is also concerned about the 
impact inadequate resourcing may have on the pace of anti-
corrosion technology development. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the 
House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2015, on the 
implementation of corrosion prevention measures both within the 
military departments and the Corrosion Prevention Program 
Office.
    Further, the budget request contained $4.8 million in 
operation and maintenance funding for the Corrosion Prevention 
Program in addition to military department and departmental 
research efforts to combat corrosion, which the committee 
believes to be inadequate. The committee recommends an 
additional $20.0 million to be divided equally among the 
military departments' corrosion prevention efforts and the 
defense-wide Corrosion Prevention Program.

       Marine Corps Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces

    The committee recognizes the importance of Marine Corps 
Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (SPMAGTFs) in 
meeting emerging combatant commander operational and force-
presence requirements. The committee understands that the 
Marine Corps intends to expand the current SPMAGTF-Crisis 
Response capability at Moron Air Base in Spain and stand up an 
additional SPMAGTF in both the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) 
and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) areas of responsibility 
focused on crisis response, contingency, offensive and 
defensive, security, humanitarian, and non-combatant evacuation 
operations.
    However, the committee is concerned that for the second 
fiscal year in a row the President's budget request failed to 
fully fund these critical requirements in the base budget. The 
committee notes that it authorized an additional $40.6 million 
in fiscal year 2014 to help the Marine Corps fund this emerging 
requirement.
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained $905.7 
million in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for Marine 
Operating Forces which compose the core elements of the MAGTF 
and SPMAGTF. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would 
authorize $939.5 million, an increase of $33.8 million, for 
Marine Operating Forces to support the operation and 
maintenance costs of creating the Special Purpose Marine Air-
Ground Task Force-CENTCOM and the Special Purpose Marine Air-
Ground Task Force-SOUTHCOM.
    However, the committee expects the Marine Corps to fully 
fund all SPMAGTF operations in future fiscal year base budgets.

            Support for International Sporting Competitions

    The budget request contained $10.0 million for Support for 
International Sporting Competitions (SISC). This is a no-year 
appropriation.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
working with Special Olympics International, Special Olympics 
North America, and the Games Organizing Committee for the 2015 
Special Olympics World Summer Games in Los Angeles to determine 
the potential scope and scale of the Department's support. The 
Department expects it will spend between $1.0 million and $3.0 
million in SISC funding to support the 2015 Special Olympics 
World Summer Games in Los Angeles.
    The committee notes that as of March 2014, there is an 
obligated balance of $3.8 million in this account, as well as 
$4.3 million in allocated but unobligated funds. These 
unobligated funds were previously allocated for certain 
sporting events that have since concluded; therefore, the funds 
are available for the next set of ``logistical and security 
support for international sporting competitions,'' which is the 
purpose of this fund.
    Due to the availability of unobligated funds currently 
within the account, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.3 
million from the President's budget request.

                             Energy Issues


  Comptroller General Utilities Disruption and Energy Security Mandate

    United States military installations consume large amounts 
of energy and water to maintain effective installation 
operations and ensure mission readiness and capability. At the 
same time, U.S. utilities systems may be at risk from civilian 
power grid failures due to natural or manmade threats, 
including cyber threats and electromagnetic pulse events. The 
United States experienced significant power disruptions from 
severe weather events in 2012, including Hurricane Sandy which 
affected the northeast region, and the derecho which affected 
the mid-Atlantic, including the National Capital Region, as 
well as late winter storms in February-March 2014 that left 
hundreds of thousands of customers without power in areas from 
the Northeast through the Midwest and parts of the Deep South. 
These weather events affected installations, housing, military 
logistics centers, training centers, military commands, and 
other critical military activities. As such the committee is 
concerned that the impact of such disruptions to an 
installation's electricity, potable water, and wastewater 
services has a direct impact on critical mission readiness. It 
is vital that military installations have the ability to 
maintain effective operations and energy security despite such 
disruptions.
    The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense 
and the military services are focusing on the potential for 
utilities service disruptions to impact installation mission 
capability and consequently to ensure the ability of the 
installations to nonetheless maintain operations. Still, it is 
not clear what efforts the Department is undertaking to ensure 
and promote energy security across its facilities. Accordingly, 
the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to undertake a study of the status of the Department's 
and the military services' actions to ensure mission capability 
and energy security in the event of potentially significant and 
long-term disruptions to electric, potable water, and 
wastewater services at domestic and overseas military 
installations. The study should address the following 
questions:
    (1) What is the status of water and energy security plans, 
strategies, and related guidance to the military departments 
and the installations to ensure mission capability through the 
continued provision of electricity, potable water, and 
wastewater services in the event of natural or manmade 
disruptions?
    (2) To what extent were domestic military installations 
able to maintain effective mission capability during natural or 
manmade utility service disruptions since 2012?
    (3) How are the military departments and installations 
planning to continue ensuring mission capability and energy 
security despite the threat to electric, potable water, and 
wastewater services posed by natural or manmade service 
disruptions? The Comptroller General should report the results 
of this study to the congressional defense committees by March 
2, 2015.

                     Marine Hydrokinetic Technology

    The committee commends the Navy for efforts to assess ocean 
energy technologies, as defined in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140), and encourages the 
Navy to continue its work with the Department of Energy and 
designated National Marine Renewable Energy Centers for marine 
hydrokinetic demonstration activities at or near Department of 
Defense facilities. Waves, tidal and ocean currents have the 
potential to significantly contribute to the country's 
electricity production, and ultimately, help the Department of 
Defense reduce its energy costs on military installations. The 
committee recognizes the Navy's efforts to further test, 
research, develop, and deploy maritime security systems, at-sea 
surveillance and communications systems, and advance 
opportunities to reduce the cost of energy and increase energy 
security at Department of Defense facilities. Therefore, the 
committee urges the Navy to continue their efforts in ocean 
energy research and development where cost effective.

              Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Energy Efficiencies

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
review of the energy efficiency initiatives, including non-
conventional power sources, of unmanned aerial vehicles to 
extend range and endurance and increase speed. The review 
should also include an assessment on how the adoption of 
autonomous technology could reduce the demand for energy and 
logistics. The Secretary should submit the results of the 
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 2015.

                    Logistics and Sustainment Issues


                  Army Workload and Performance System

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued 
a report criticizing the Army's management of the Army Workload 
and Performance System (AWPS), the Army manpower requirements 
determination tool, and related matters. Remarkably, the Army 
failed to provide any responses to GAO's findings. This report 
noted that the Army failed to submit annual progress reports 
regarding implementation of AWPS master plan or catalog any 
revisions of the master plan to Congress as required by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public 
Law 107-107). The initial master plans submitted to the 
committee were responsive and compelling and evidenced high-
level interest within the Department of the Army. As a result, 
the committee concluded from those early reports and system 
demonstrations that the Army was serious about installing time, 
workload, and performance management systems across the Army 
infrastructure for all categories of labor, including logistics 
and sustainment.
    While the committee commends the Secretary of the Army for 
his recently released responses concerning the GAO report on 
AWPS and its coverage of important segments of the issues, the 
committee concludes that the Army's failure to comply with the 
directives in Public Law 107-107 requires a re-evaluation of 
how to complete this departmental task. The committee 
recommends that a high-priority Secretariat-level project 
office and reporting structure be established with sufficient 
authority to implement the original, responsive master plan and 
its revisions. Further, the Secretary should affix 
responsibility for an inclusive, annual master plan 
implementation reporting process.
    The committee expects the Government Accountability Office, 
as required by law, to evaluate the master plan and report to 
Congress on the Army's progress. As stated in previous 
committee reports (as well as Army reports), evaluation should 
include not only implementation throughout Army commands and 
infrastructure, but also assess whether budget submissions are 
supported by this data. In the committee report (H. Rept 104-
131) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 104-106), the committee noted that the 
evaluation should include corporate-level systems and 
integration. Additionally, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States, as part of this 
ongoing work, to examine and report to the House Committee on 
Armed Services on how the workload and manpower data provided 
through the AWPS system could improve reporting and 
transparency for 50/50 workload reporting, including all 
maintenance activity in acquisition organizations, as well as 
Army Materiel Command.

    Auditability of Data Used to Measure Depot Maintenance Workload 
                              Distribution

    The committee has become aware that, apart from the Army, 
the military departments have not involved their audit agencies 
in validating the data submitted for incorporation into the 
annual report to Congress required by section 2466 of title 10, 
United States Code, also known as the ``50/50 report,'' for 
several years. The committee is troubled by the finding that in 
the limited number of cases where auditors have been involved 
in reviewing these data, they identified significant errors. 
The committee is also aware that in some instances, the data 
included for submission related to depot-level workloads 
performed under contractor logistics support, interim 
contractor support, or other contractual arrangements are 
generated through the use of algorithms or other forms of cost 
estimation. In some cases, these estimates appear to have been 
generated using insufficiently rigorous methodologies.
    These findings lead the committee to conclude the fidelity 
of the data supporting the annual ``50/50 report'' is 
questionable and could be distorting the true distribution of 
workload between the public and private sectors, reducing the 
committee's confidence in the report's accuracy and 
completeness, as well as inhibiting the military services from 
making fully informed decisions regarding source of repair in 
the context of section 2466 of title 10, United States Code.
    The January 14, 2014, guidance titled ``Reporting Guidance 
for the FY2013-2015 Report to Congress on the Distribution of 
Department of Defense Depot Maintenance Workloads,'' issued by 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel 
Readiness, states that ``Military departments and Agencies 
shall obtain the assistance of internal audit agencies or an 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)-agreed upon third 
party to conduct detailed reviews to validate the process for 
capturing depot maintenance expenditure data by reporting 
organizations.'' The committee notes that this reporting 
guidance reflects a change from prior guidance, which did not 
include process validation, only data validation prior to OSD 
submission. In the committee's view, it is imperative that the 
data submitted to the Congress be validated. Moreover, the 
committee believes that participation of the military 
departments' audit agencies in validating the data submitted 
for the ``50/50 report'' will provide the greatest assurance 
that what is reported represents an accurate and complete 
picture of the distribution of depot-level workload between the 
public and private sectors.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the military departments 
and defense agencies to comply with the guidance to the fullest 
extent, and, to the degree that it is practicable, ensure 
direct military department audit agency involvement in this 
effort. Specifically, this effort should provide assurance that 
the data submitted for inclusion in the ``50/50 report'' is 
accurate and complete. The Secretary of Defense, in the next 
two annual reports to Congress required under section 2466 of 
title 10, United States Code, should include a description of 
the efforts made by each of the military departments and 
defense agencies to comply with the validation requirement. The 
committee notes that if voluntary compliance is not evidenced, 
the committee will consider statutory enforcement.

    Comptroller General Review of Forward Deployed Naval Forces and 
                     Associated Sustainment Issues

    Forward presence is critical to the Navy's goals of 
building partnerships, deterring aggression without escalation, 
defusing threats, and containing conflict without regional 
disruption. Naval forces provide forward presence through a 
combination of rotational deployments from the United States, 
Forward Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) in Japan, Guam, the 
Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian Republic, and forward 
stationing ships in places such as the Kingdom of Bahrain, the 
Republic of Singapore, and Diego Garcia. The Navy's ability to 
implement these concepts depends on U.S. bases and strategic 
partnerships overseas that provide places where forces can 
rest, repair, refuel, and resupply. In the FDNF construct, the 
ships, crews and families all reside in the host nation. This 
construct is in contrast to forward stationing, where the 
ship's families reside in the United States and the crew 
rotates to the ship's overseas location for deployment.
    The committee seeks a more detailed understanding of the 
Navy's decision-making process to designate ships to be either 
FDNF or forward stationed and the relative costs and benefits 
of each approach. The committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees by February 27, 2015. The report should 
include a review and analysis of:
    (1) The Navy's process for determining the homeport 
locations of naval vessels, including FDNF;
    (2) The Navy's process for stationing naval vessels outside 
the United States;
    (3) How the Navy calculates deployment costs of vessels 
homeported inside and outside the United States;
    (4) The extent to which the Navy has utilized rotational 
crewing to meet forward presence requirements;
    (5) The operational availability achieved by rotational 
crewing, the savings achieved, and the limitations associated 
with directed rotational crewing;
    (6) The operational support and sustainment effects of 
deploying U.S.-based vessels to a forward operating station as 
opposed to homeporting vessels outside the United States, 
including costs of complying with section 7310 of title 10, 
United States Code, maintenance requirements;
    (7) The infrastructure requirements, as well as host-nation 
acceptance requirements to ensure the assets are received 
overseas; and
    (8) Any other issue that the Comptroller General determines 
appropriate.

   Department of Defense Inspector General Determination of Fair and 
                     Reasonable Cost of Spare Parts

    The committee has received testimony that sustainment of 
military equipment is the most expensive phase of the 
Department of Defense's acquisition process. The committee is 
alarmed by frequent reports from the Department of Defense 
Inspector General (DODIG) and the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) that the Department has paid hundreds of millions 
of dollars above what are considered fair and reasonable prices 
for weapon system spare parts and is missing opportunities for 
significant savings.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Department of 
Defense Inspector General to perform a comprehensive audit to 
determine if current Department of Defense guidance is 
sufficient to obtain fair and reasonable prices for equipment 
spare parts. The audit should assess the extent to which the 
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the military departments 
have put in place metrics for measuring:
    (1) Guidance and efforts to improve demand forecasting are 
effective for ensuring appropriate and adequate provision of 
spare parts and other supplies needed to keep military 
equipment ready and operating; and
    (2) Inventory management cost efficiency.
    The DODIG should also assess the costs the Department of 
Defense has incurred by paying prices beyond what is fair and 
reasonable for spare parts and other supplies. The DODIG's 
audit should assess the prevalence of disparities between 
prices deemed to be fair and reasonable and those prices paid 
by the DLA and the military departments for spare parts or 
supplies, and potential cost savings if the parts or other 
supplies had been obtained by DLA and the military departments 
instead of through a performance-based logistics support 
contract. The DODIG should provide a report on the results of 
the audit to the congressional defense committees not later 
than February 28, 2015.

    Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport Hazardous 
                Materials for the Department of Defense

    The Department of Defense every year facilitates nearly 
70,000 separate shipments of security sensitive material. 
Trucks carrying these shipments travel tens of thousands of 
miles on U.S. interstates, highways, and local thoroughfares 
across all 50 States. Materials that are transported include 
missiles, arms/weapons, ammunition, explosives, radioactive 
material, and classified items. Shipments are executed under 
the Transportation Protective Services (TPS) program which 
requires stringent safety and security standards for operators 
who are licensed to do business with the program.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a 
comprehensive review of the policies and procedures used by the 
Department of Defense in the handling of hazardous material 
shipments pursuant to section 363 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). In 
its report to the committee, the GAO stated that the Safety 
Measurement System scores used by the Department to determine 
safety performance of its TPS carriers ``should not be used to 
draw safety conclusions about a carrier's safety condition. As 
a result, the Department may not be using the most reliable 
data from the Compliance, Safety, Accountability's Safety 
Measurement System to determine which carriers should be 
eligible for the [TPS] program.''
    As a result of this finding, and to ensure the safety and 
security of Department of Defense's shipments of sensitive 
arms, ammunition, and explosives, the committee directs the 
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, to examine the data 
limitations of the Department of Transportation Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration's Safety and Accountability 
program and report to the House Armed Services Committee by 
December 15, 2014, on what changes, if any, should be made to 
the process used by the Department of Defense to determine 
hazardous material carrier eligibility and evaluate performance 
of carriers within the TPS program. Additionally, the 
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, is directed to provide 
a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by September 
30, 2015, on the progress made to implement the changes.

                    F117 Engine Sustainment Strategy

    The budget request contained $778.0 million for F117 engine 
maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) activities.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force 
has struggled to reign in F117 engine MRO costs. The committee 
is concerned that the Secretary of the Air Force cannot 
sufficiently determine whether the Department is paying a fair 
and reasonable cost for F117 MRO because of limited performance 
and cost data available to the Department as a result of the 
F117 MRO contract structure and administration. As a result, 
the committee encouraged the Air Force to seek a competitive 
strategy for F117 MRO, specifically competition for repair, 
overhaul, supply chain management, and systems engineering 
support activities. The Air Force determined that prospective 
vendors had the potential to use commercial data to derive F117 
rates and factors, and that vendors illustrated avenues to 
procure parts from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of 
the F117 engine. Furthermore, the F117 engine is 91 percent 
similar in design to the PW2000 commercial engine, and the 
PW2000/F117 manuals are similar for overhaul and component 
repair.
    In fall 2013, the Air Force attempted competition through 
issuance of a request for proposals but subsequently determined 
that proposals received were deemed not viable due to proposed 
costs. In performing a root-cause analysis, the Department 
determined that immediate competition was not possible because 
supply chain management competition was not feasible, vendors 
would need 3 to 5 years of F117 engine usage data, and engine 
OEMs have become increasingly more involved in after-market 
sales by offering life-cycle support programs.
    The committee notes that the Air Force plans to consider an 
alternative MRO strategy that has the potential to reduce 
sustainment costs of the F117 engine, but the committee remains 
concerned that the Air Force may be limited in determining 
whether F117 sustainment costs are fair and reasonable as 
compared to commercial-derivative PW2000 engine MRO costs being 
borne in the private sector.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the 
Air Force to continue pursuit of an F117 MRO sustainment 
strategy that will achieve measurable cost reduction and 
sufficient insight to OEM sustainment data and metrics in order 
to determine cost fairness and reasonableness of the F117 
sustainment program execution. The committee also encourages 
the Secretary of the Air Force to re-evaluate the necessity for 
contracting with the prime system vendor for F117 MRO 
activities to determine whether process and cost efficiencies 
could be gained by contracting directly with the F117 OEM. The 
committee also includes a provision elsewhere in this act that 
would prohibit the F117 Milestone Decision Authority from 
approving entry into subsequent F117 sustainment contracts 
without the required MRO data that provide the Secretary of the 
Air Force sufficient insight to determine whether the Secretary 
is outlaying fair and reasonable costs to own and operate the 
F117 engine as compared to commercial-derivative PW2000 
ownership MRO costs in the private sector.

                Manufacturing Infrastructure Investment

    The committee is aware of the unique challenges and varied 
relationships associated with the broad range of customers who 
have for decades supported the continued combat vehicle 
production capability at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center 
(JSMC). As a government-owned, contractor-operated facility, 
JSMC represents a unique, long-term fiscal challenge for the 
U.S. Army for the continued maintenance and periodic upgrade of 
the facility, which has a deferred maintenance and repair 
projects list totaling over $40.0 million. Production Base 
Support funding over the past several years has been 
insufficient to support minimum JSMC maintenance requirements, 
including correcting critical safety and environmental 
deficiencies.
    The Department of the Army must ensure the facility is 
properly resourced to efficiently and effectively meet the 
Army's tank and other combat vehicle production-related 
requirements, Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and Direct 
Commercial Sales for the foreseeable future. The committee 
understands the difficulty in determining how the Department 
should share the operational support costs associated with the 
JSMC across the broad range of current and future customers. 
For example, future FMS programs could generate more than $10.0 
million in facilities usage fees. The committee believes 
reinvestment of these funds could help remediate facilities 
maintenance deficiencies and subsequently benefit all current 
and future JSMC customers.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services not later than 
February 9, 2015, on the Army's analysis, plans, and/or 
recommendations, to include potential legislative proposals, on 
how the operational costs associated with the Joint Systems 
Manufacturing Center could be equitably applied so that the 
facility can remain viable and relevant.

  Public-Private Partnerships at Centers of Industrial and Technical 
                               Excellence

    The committee recognizes the mutual benefits to both the 
organic and commercial industrial base of partnering activities 
especially in a resource-constrained environment. The committee 
also believes that full visibility into the scope and scale of 
partnerships is critical for proper oversight of industrial 
base sustainment. As a result, the committee is concerned about 
the lack of visibility into the Department of Defense's public-
private partnership activities authorized by section 2474 of 
title 10, United States Code. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to deliver to the congressional defense 
committees by January 5, 2015, a report on all partnerships 
entered into pursuant to section 2474 of title 10, United 
States Code, in fiscal year 2014 and for the preceding three 
fiscal years. The report at a minimum should include the 
location of work performed under the partnership, the 
commercial and organic entities comprising the partnership, the 
length of the partnership, and a description of the work 
performed by the partnership.

   Report on the Department of Defense's Transportation of Hazardous 
                               Materials

    The Department of Defense transports more than 1.5 million 
hazardous material (HAZMAT) shipments each year. These 
shipments can be high-risk as well as highly sensitive and, if 
improperly handled, labeled, or packaged could result in the 
loss of life, property damage, and harm to national security 
interests. A complex framework of statutes and regulations 
governs the Department's handling, labeling, and packaging of 
hazardous material shipments. The Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) recently reported on challenges the Department has 
experienced in implementing these regulations, which can 
adversely affect the safe, timely, and cost-effective 
transportation of hazardous materials. For example, in some 
cases Department of Defense installations did not provide 
carriers transporting sensitive arms, ammunition and explosives 
hazardous materials with timely access to secure hold areas or 
assist them in locating the nearest alternate means to secure 
those shipments, leaving these items in the public domain 
longer than necessary. Accordingly, the committee encourages 
the Department to develop a process to identify and implement 
the necessary corrective actions to ensure that its 
installations provide secure hold as required. Additionally, 
GAO found a substantial number of hazardous material shipments 
were not documented and packaged in accordance with regulations 
and other guidance, which resulted in delays. The committee is 
concerned about costs (and potential operational impacts) that 
may be incurred by the Department as a result of these delays 
or whether any materials were unnecessarily shipped through the 
more expensive Transportation Protective Services program 
because they were improperly identified as sensitive items.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2014, 
on the Department of Defense's transportation of hazardous 
materials. That report should also be provided to the 
Comptroller General of the United States at that time. 
Specifically, the report should include, but is not limited to, 
a discussion of:
    (1) The root causes of improper documentation and packaging 
of HAZMAT throughout the Department of Defense transportation 
system;
    (2) The extent to which Transportation Protective Services 
are being used to transport HAZMAT shipments that could safely 
and securely be transported using less costly means;
    (3) Any needed corrective actions and an action plan with 
associated milestones to implement those corrective actions.
    After the Secretary provides the report to Congress, the 
Comptroller General of the United States should conduct a 
review of the report and provide a preliminary briefing to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by March 15, 2015, with a final report or 
reports to follow within 120 days.

  Report on the Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport 
       Security-Sensitive Materials for the Department of Defense

    The Department of Defense every year facilitates nearly 
70,000 separate shipments of security sensitive material. 
Trucks carrying these shipments travel millions of miles on 
U.S. interstates, highways, and local thoroughfares across all 
50 States. Examples of materials that are transported include 
missiles, arms/weapons, ammunition, explosives, radioactive 
material, and classified items. These shipments are executed 
under the Transportation Protective Services (TPS) program 
which requires stringent safety and security standards for 
operators who are approved to do business with the program. 
However, a comprehensive study of the necessary safety 
standards, technology, and public liability of carriers in the 
TPS program has not been conducted.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to provide a report to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
December 15, 2014. That report should include, but is not 
limited to, the following:
    (1) An assessment of whether there is sufficient data in 
the Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's Compliance, Safety, and Accountability program 
to evaluate carrier safety performance and what additional data 
may be necessary;
    (2) A determination of what additional standards should 
apply to the process used by the Department of Defense to 
decide Transportation Protective Services carrier eligibility 
and evaluate performance of the TPS program;
    (3) An assessment of whether proven safety technologies 
recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board (e.g., 
roll stability control systems, forward collision warning 
systems, electronic logging devices) should be mandated for 
trucks transporting TPS shipments in order to reduce the risk 
of a catastrophic accident or damage to materials;
    (4) An assessment of whether minimum public liability and 
property damage insurance should be increased for TPS carriers; 
and
    (5) An assessment of whether TPS carriers need to staff 24 
hour call centers to monitor operations and assist in 
emergencies.

                Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul

    The committee understands the Navy continues to request 
partial funding to support submarine propeller repair and 
overhaul (SPRO) in the Overseas Contingency Operations account, 
rather than planning for full funding based on true historical 
and current year SPRO expenditures within the Navy's annual 
defense budget. Additionally, the committee remains concerned 
with the Navy's ongoing proposed ``repair only'' approach to 
SPRO. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to re-
evaluate this plan and report to the Committee on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives by December 15, 2014, 
on an approach, to include both fiscal year 2015 and Future 
Years Defense Program funding, that addresses the ongoing mix 
of both propeller repair and overhaul needs.

      Sustainment of Deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense

    The committee commends the Department of Defense for its 
rapid and successful deployment of an Army Air and Missile 
Defense Task Force (AMDTF) and Terminal High-Altitude Area 
Defense (THAAD) missile defense battery to Guam last spring in 
response to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's 
aggressive posture. The committee notes that Army Chief of 
Staff, General Raymond Odierno, in testimony before the 
committee, stated that the Army is working on plans to sustain 
a long-term presence of a THAAD battery and an AMDTF on Guam to 
provide necessary protection of military manpower, assets, and 
civilians. In order to better understand the requirements to 
sustain an AMDTF and THAAD battery on Guam, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to report to the committee 
by January 31, 2015, on the following requirements related to 
THAAD sustainment:
    (1) An accounting of force structure needed, including 
potential Army National Guard or Army Reserve force structure;
    (2) Potential military construction needed for force 
protection and other sustainment issues;
    (3) Estimated military personnel and operation and 
maintenance costs; and
    (4) Any legal, statutory, or authority challenges 
associated with sustaining an AMDTF and THAAD battery on Guam.

                            Readiness Issues


 Adequacy of Airlift and Refueling Capabilities in the Western Pacific

    Recognizing the strategic importance of the Department of 
Defense's efforts to rebalance forces to the Asia-Pacific 
region, the committee continues to question the adequacy of 
airlift and refueling capabilities in that region. U.S. Pacific 
Command (PACOM) must accomplish a variety of missions and 
requirements in a geographic area of responsibility that spans 
almost 9,000 miles from Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean to the 
Republic of Maldives in the Indian Ocean. Airlift and refueling 
capabilities play a critical role in supporting and sustaining 
forward-deployed forces in the Asia-Pacific region.
    The committee is concerned about the ability of the U.S. 
Air Force to provide sustained airlift to support ground forces 
and equipment in the region to meet current and emerging 
requirements. Particularly, the committee is concerned about 
the cost of the current rotational tanker presence in the 
western Pacific. Given current budget constraints and the risk 
in the readiness accounts, the committee is concerned that 
rotational presence may not be the most fiscally prudent means 
of meeting airlift and refueling requirements, especially in 
light of the potential for sustained sequestration. The 
committee, therefore, directs the Commander, U.S. Pacific 
Command, in consultation with the Commander, Pacific Air 
Forces, to brief the committee by March 30, 2015, on airlift 
and tanker capabilities in the Pacific Command area of 
responsibility. At a minimum, the briefing should include:
    (1) The cost of current rotational tanker presence in the 
western Pacific;
    (2) The cost of permanently stationing tankers in the 
western Pacific to meet current operational requirements; and
    (3) Plans for future beddown of permanent and rotational 
airlift and tanker assets in the western Pacific to meet 
Pacific Command operational requirements.

           Advanced Situational Awareness Training Assessment

    The committee is aware that the Army continues to 
successfully incorporate training modules to detect changes in 
human behavior through Advanced Situational Awareness Training 
(ASAT). The committee recognizes the benefits of such training 
and the enhancement to mission effectiveness, decisive 
advantage, enhanced use of existing optical equipment, and 
reduction of civilian casualties that it can help provide. The 
committee believes the benefits of situational awareness 
training are significant enough to warrant a long-term 
assessment of ASAT training requirements and a plan for 
possible future institutionalization.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct 
an assessment of ASAT training and brief the House Committee on 
Armed Services on the results not later than October 1, 2014. 
This assessment and briefing should specifically include 
current ASAT training requirements, the cost and time required 
to institutionalize an ASAT training program across the Army, 
and quantifiable training benefits achieved by ASAT training to 
date.

                Army Aviation Range Safety Improvements

    The committee is concerned that low-altitude radar coverage 
deficiencies at Army aviation training ranges are creating 
undue risk. These aviation safety hazards contributed to a mid-
air collision in December 2011, resulting in the loss of all 
crew members. The committee commends the Army for working to 
mitigate this risk with the installation of wide-area 
multilateration systems. Multilateration systems provide 
improved situational awareness in all weather conditions, are 
highly scalable, more affordable than traditional radars, have 
been proven in commercial aviation, and provide accurate 
tracking and data capture for training operations and after-
action reports. Multilateration systems are capable of 
precision surveillance and identification of all transponder-
equipped aircraft at all altitudes.
    The committee encourages the Army to continue fielding 
wide-area multilateration systems on its training ranges to 
provide aviators with realistic operational scenarios and to 
enhance safety for aviators and civilians who live in proximity 
to military training areas.

                         Army Aviation Training

    The committee notes the continued demand for Army aviation 
capabilities on the battlefield and the importance of providing 
real-world training to Army aviators throughout the program of 
instruction at the Army Aviation Center of Excellence. The 
committee recognizes the training, cost, and performance 
benefits of instructing Army aviators on aircraft that operate 
more similarly to the Army's current fleet of dual-engine, 
glass cockpit, four-blade combat helicopters.

           Commercially Augmented Tactical Airborne Training

    The committee is aware of the historical utilization of 
contracted fighter aircraft to enhance and augment training. 
The roles of these aircraft range from replicating adversaries 
with high-end electronic warfare capabilities, to developing 
air battle manager skills, to conducting joint terminal attack 
controller training. Using commercially provided assets to 
augment airborne tactical training can prolong the service life 
of U.S. military aircraft and reduce the number of training 
support missions flown by military aviators.
    The committee is also aware that additional contracted 
tactical training capacity exists and that there may be 
potential for additional savings or cost avoidance through the 
increased utilization of that capacity. Given the increased 
need to maximize efficiencies in training in order to preserve 
readiness and assets, the committee encourages the military 
departments to utilize, to the maximum extent practical, 
commercially provided tactical airborne training augmentation.

             Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System

    The committee is concerned by the proliferation of more 
advanced threats to U.S. Armed Forces and the lack of more 
advanced instrumentation to support aviation combat training. 
These increasingly complex weapons threats require equally 
complex next-generation capabilities that can provide realistic 
training while at the same time reducing cost of current 
``live-fly'' exercises. The Common Range Integrated 
Instrumentation System has demonstrated critical attributes 
including: an integrated multi-level security that will enable 
seamless communications between legacy and next-generation 
aircraft as well as between U.S. and coalition forces; flexible 
architectures that enable live, virtual constructive training 
capability; and a network architecture that is deployable, both 
ashore and at sea. Accordingly, the committee encourages the 
Department of Defense to make maximum reuse of mature, 
scalable, and secure technologies developed for the test range 
community when considering their applicability and 
affordability for military training ranges.

            Comptroller General Report on Readiness Metrics

    For decades the Department of Defense has used ``C-
ratings,'' which measure unit resources and training against 
doctrinal wartime missions, to measure the readiness of its 
forces. However, to support the recent missions in the Republic 
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, units have 
repeatedly been reconfigured and task-organized or called upon 
to execute missions that differed from their core doctrinal 
mission statements. To better portray readiness in this new 
environment, the Department has added ``assigned mission'' and 
``capability'' ratings to its traditional C-ratings. The 
military departments and combatant commands also began 
reporting readiness assessment levels (RA-levels) to portray 
their strategic readiness. While the combination of traditional 
and newer readiness metrics have allowed the Department to 
portray its readiness for a much wider range of missions than 
in the past, the metrics do not fully account for the time 
component of readiness. Traditional C-ratings and assigned 
mission ratings tend to emphasize readiness at a particular 
point in time (the day the rating is completed). Capability and 
RA-ratings have an implicit time component because they measure 
readiness against timelines that are laid out in operations and 
contingency plans. However, the committee has observed that 
none of the metrics clearly answer the question of when forces 
will be ready. Over the past decade, when the committee has 
asked that question, the ubiquitous response has been that most 
units will be ready ``just in time.''
    With the prolonged growth of non-discretionary spending 
placing continued fiscal pressure on the defense budget, the 
``just-in-time'' answer does little to help decisionmakers 
minimize risk while preparing for a future that, in the words 
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is ``dangerous 
and uncertain.'' Because units from different military 
departments can often provide similar, if not identical, 
capabilities, the committee believes the Department's 
leadership and the Congress need to understand differences in 
both the speed and cost at which the military departments can 
provide ready forces to meet combatant commander requirements 
so they can prioritize resources and minimize risk.
    To help inform the committee's oversight and its 
consideration of the President's budget request, the committee 
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review 
the Department of Defense's readiness. The review should 
include, but not be limited to:
    (1) The current readiness of the military departments and 
combatant commands, as reported in their December 2013 
readiness reports;
    (2) A description of the key factors that are affecting the 
readiness of the military departments and the combatant 
commands, as well as a description of the steps being taken to 
address or mitigate the impact of those factors;
    (3) An analysis of the extent to which ``time'' is or has 
been incorporated as a quantitative or qualitative component of 
current and past readiness metrics: and
    (4) A description of any efforts the military departments, 
the combatant commands, the Joint Staff, or the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense have made to modify their readiness 
metrics or add any additional metrics to better address the 
question of when units or commands will be ready.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a 
preliminary briefing on these four elements to the 
congressional defense committees by February 15, 2015, with a 
report or reports to follow.

                             Other Matters


                      Arctic Center of Excellence

    The committee notes that the Department of the Navy 
released its Arctic Roadmap for 2014-2030, which provides near-
term, mid-term, and far-term direction to enhance the Navy's 
ability to operate in the Arctic region. The committee notes 
the roadmap includes an implementation plan that provides a 
timeline and identifies organizations to lead specific actions 
recommended by the roadmap. One of these actions includes 
identifying requirements in fiscal year 2015 to establish an 
Arctic Center of Excellence, as well as developing an Arctic 
engagement plan focusing on partnerships with international, 
interagency and private sector stakeholders that enhance 
security. The committee believes that the establishment of such 
a center would support the Navy's focus areas identified in the 
roadmap. In developing the requirements for such a center, the 
committee encourages the Department to consider, among other 
things, how such a center could support Arctic-related 
training, operations, maritime domain awareness, scientific 
research, and technology development. When considering 
potential locations the Department should consider candidates 
that can effectively bring together elements from the 
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, 
academia, and other public and private stakeholders who can 
contribute to advancing U.S. interests in the Arctic.

                  Army Combat Shirt Fielding Strategy

    The committee notes the Army Combat Shirt (ACS) is a field-
tested and Army-authorized combat shirt approved for combat 
operations. The ACS is worn, in most cases, as the base layer 
for the Army's interceptor body armor system, and provides 
soldiers with a highly breathable, moisture wicking clothing 
option with a flame resistance capability.
    The committee commends the Army's efforts to develop and 
field high performance flame resistant clothing to deploying 
soldiers through the rapid fielding initiative. The committee 
also notes that the ACS remains coded for wartime use only. The 
committee believes the same high performance and flame 
resistant protection capabilities provided by the ACS in combat 
operations could also be applied for domestic training and 
field exercises in the United States.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in 
consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army, to provide a 
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 
2014, on steps being taken to evaluate the ACS and other flame 
resistant combat uniforms items to describe (a) the near-term 
policy for authorizing use in appropriate field exercises and 
training scenarios at unit commander's discretion; and (b) the 
advisability and feasibility of implementing a long-term 
fielding plan for incorporating the ACS and other flame 
resistant combat uniforms as organizational equipment in 
appropriate units and in sizes and designs specific to female 
soldiers.

                Briefing on Invasive Species Management

    The committee notes that in the fall of 2013, the coconut 
rhinoceros beetle, an invasive species to the Hawaiian Islands 
and Guam, was discovered on the island of Oahu and has been 
found on Guam since 2007. While it is unknown how the species 
came to Hawaii or Guam, the committee is aware that a coconut 
rhinoceros beetle population was identified on Joint Base Pearl 
Harbor-Hickam, which is in close proximity to Honolulu 
International Airport. Since discovering the existence of this 
invasive species on Hawaii, the committee notes that the 
Department of Agriculture has been leading the effort, jointly 
with the Department of Defense and appropriate State agencies, 
to eliminate breeding sites, and monitor and control the spread 
of the coconut rhinoceros beetle on the island of Oahu.
    In addition to the more immediate response, the committee 
notes that the Department of Defense is already addressing 
invasive species through other mechanisms. Specifically, the 
Department of the Navy is supporting efforts to develop the 
Micronesian Biosecurity Plan, jointly with the Department of 
Agriculture, and the governments of the State of Hawaii, Guam, 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic 
of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic 
of the Marshall Islands. In preparing the plan, the partners 
evaluated invasive species risks to marine, terrestrial, and 
freshwater ecosystems, to include the coconut rhinoceros 
beetle. Additionally, for invasive species management, the 
committee notes that Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam and Joint 
Region Marianas maintain an Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plan which includes measures to prevent the 
proliferation of invasive species.
    The committee encourages the Department of the Navy to 
continue its work with the Department of Agriculture, as well 
as State and local entities, to monitor and contain any further 
spread of the coconut rhinoceros beetle within Hawaii and Guam. 
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a 
briefing to the committee not later than September 1, 2014, 
regarding the status of the coconut rhinoceros beetle on Joint 
Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam and Joint Region Marianas and steps 
the Department of the Navy has taken, working with partners, to 
control, mitigate, or eradicate the species or its habitat.

                    Cold-Weather Protective Clothing

    The committee is concerned that the use of end-of-year 
funding for the acquisition of cold-weather clothing, glove 
systems, and equipment for training, and for cold-weather 
combat negatively affect military readiness and the defense 
industrial base. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not 
later than September 30, 2014, a report describing the 
Department's efforts to provide the Active and Reserve 
Components with the cold-weather clothing, glove systems, and 
equipment required for training and deployments. The committee 
directs the Secretary to include in the report an update on the 
funding needed to meet Active and Reserve Component 
requirements for cold-weather clothing, glove systems, and 
equipment in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. The report should also 
include an acquisition strategy and spending plan outlining the 
projected schedule for the obligation of funds to acquire the 
necessary equipment.

     Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense's Arctic 
                              Capabilities

    In its 2012 report on Arctic capabilities, the Government 
Accountability Office noted that while the Department of 
Defense has undertaken some efforts to assess the capabilities 
needed to meet national security objectives in the Arctic, it 
is unclear whether the Department will be in a position to 
provide needed capabilities in a timely and efficient manner. 
Pursuant to the recommendations in that GAO report that the 
Department of Defense develop a risk-based investment strategy 
and collaborate with other interagency stakeholders to identify 
longer term needs, the Department published an Arctic Strategy 
in November 2013. In that strategy, the Department identified a 
number of investments that will need to be made over time while 
noting the risk that investments in Arctic capabilities may not 
compete successfully against other priorities. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to provide to the congressional defense committees a review 
addressing:
    (1) The process used by the Department of Defense to 
identify and develop the capabilities required for the Arctic 
mission to include identifying the supporting force structure, 
personnel, training, equipment, and infrastructure;
    (2) The extent to which the Department has identified any 
capability gaps; and developed mitigation plans and timelines 
to address those gaps;
    (3) How the Department of Defense is collaborating with 
other agencies such as the Coast Guard to identify and address 
longer-term needs in the Arctic; and
    (4) Any additional information the Comptroller General 
deems appropriate in the context of that review.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a 
preliminary briefing to the House Armed Services Committee on 
the review by February 6, 2015 with a report to follow within 
90 days.

  Comptroller General Review of Process for the Disposition of Excess 
                            Defense Articles

    The Department of Defense is a large provider of surplus 
personal property and equipment that goes to local governments, 
fire and police departments, Veterans Service Organizations, 
hospitals, and many other local entities. The transfer of 
surplus personal property and equipment to other Federal 
agencies and local and State governments by the Department 
provides a significant savings of American taxpayer dollars. As 
budgetary resources continue to shrink, it is imperative that 
American tax dollars are well spent and managed and re-
utilization within the Department of Defense is maximized. 
Furthermore, it is important that any surplus personal property 
and equipment that is being sold through the Department of 
Defense surplus property sales program is done in accordance 
with laws relating to the disposition of excess and surplus 
property. As surplus personal property and equipment become 
more valuable, the Department of Defense and the Defense 
Logistics Agency (DLA) should have procedures and protocols to 
ensure that fair market value for surplus personal property and 
equipment is being received. If the Department is not receiving 
fair market value for surplus personal property and equipment 
being sold, this could be a serious financial loss to the 
American taxpayer.
    To ensure that the taxpayer is getting the greatest 
financial benefit out of surplus equipment originally purchased 
with tax dollars, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to review and report to the congressional 
defense committees on the Department of Defense's and the 
Defense Logistics Agency's excess and surplus personal property 
programs, including their programs that provide excess or 
surplus personal property and equipment to other Federal 
agencies and to local and State governments and on their 
programs that sell surplus personal property and equipment. The 
review should include, but not be limited to, an examination 
of:
    (1) The methods DLA uses to provide visibility of available 
excess property and equipment to interested agencies and 
provide access for physical inspection of the property and 
equipment;
    (2) Instances in which Department of Defense property and 
equipment that have been declared excess, and that are 
desirable for use by other Federal agencies and by State or 
local governments, are transferred to a commercial vendor for 
sale;
    (3) The process DLA uses to code property and equipment for 
disposition, particularly instances in which property and 
equipment that have been coded for return to military units are 
transferred to a commercial vendor for sale; and
    (4) The costs that DLA incurs by destroying appropriately 
coded property and equipment that otherwise could be 
demilitarized and made available to interested Federal agencies 
or State and local governments.
    (5) Instances where the Department did not receive fair 
market value for excess or surplus personal property and 
equipment transferred to a commercial vendor for sale.
    The Comptroller General should provide a preliminary 
briefing to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 
2015, with a final report or reports to follow.

                        Office of Net Assessment

    The budget request contained $8.9 million within Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense for the Office of Net Assessment (ONA).
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense 
continues to decrement the proposed funding for the office. The 
committee is concerned that this decrement, in conjunction with 
the Secretary of Defense's plan to realign the office under the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, may limit 
the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range 
comparative assessments. The office has a long history of 
providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge 
the ``group think'' that can often pervade the Department of 
Defense. The committee believes that the growing array of 
complex security challenges facing the United States, as 
highlighted in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, coupled 
with a constrained budget environment, will only create greater 
demand for the unconventional thinking and solutions that the 
Office is capable of providing.
    One such challenge is in the area of space deterrence, and 
elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that 
would require the office to conduct a study of potential 
alternate defense and deterrent strategies in response to the 
existing and projected counterspace capabilities of the 
People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation.
    The committee therefore recommends $18.9 million, an 
increase of $10.0 million, for fiscal year 2015 for the Office 
of Net Assessment. This recommended authorization is reflected 
in a new funding line for the Office of Net Assessment within 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, as shown in section 
4301 of this Act.
    Also, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a 
provision that would codify the Office within chapter 4 of 
title 10, United States Code, and establish a dedicated program 
element for budgeting purposes. The committee believes the 
office must remain an independent organization within the 
Department reporting directly to the Secretary. However, the 
committee also recognizes that improvements can be made within 
the Department to ensure the office's assessments better inform 
and influence its overall strategy and policy. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 
House Committee on Armed Services, not later than September 5, 
2014, a plan for how the Department can better leverage the 
Office as well as a description of the activities, 
deliverables, and allocation of funds planned for the Office of 
Net Assessment for fiscal year 2015.

        Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers

    The budget request contained $3.6 million for the Concept 
Development, Study and Planning for Future Regional Special 
Operations Forces Coordination Centers (RSCC) within Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide.
    The committee notes that this request is unwarranted and 
ahead of need given the statutory limitation on the 
establishment of an RSCC or similar entity by U.S. Special 
Operations Command within a regional geographic combatant 
commander's (GCC) area of responsibility, in accordance with 
section 1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The committee also notes 
that section 1244 of Public Law 113-66 required that the 
Secretary of Defense submit a report to certain congressional 
committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
Public Law 113-66, outlining RSCC requirements and anticipated 
legislative authorities that may be needed to support such 
requirements. The committee notes with concern that this report 
has yet to be delivered. The committee furthermore believes 
that any RSCC-like initiatives or requirements should be put 
forth by regional GCCs to ensure such initiatives are linked 
comprehensively to all regional plans, requirements, and 
activities. The committee therefore denies the requested amount 
of $3.6 million for the Concept Development, Study and Planning 
for Future Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination 
Centers and redirects this funding to more direct operational 
readiness requirements within Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-wide, for the Flying Hours Program for U.S. Special 
Operations Command. Furthermore, the committee encourages the 
Secretary of Defense to provide the report as mandated in 
Public Law 113-66.

      Report on Emerging Technologies for Flame Resistant Uniforms

    The military services currently have validated requirements 
for flame-resistant uniforms for personnel in specific military 
occupational specialties and for personnel deploying to hostile 
environments. The committee believes the current flame-
resistant requirements are appropriate and not in need of 
modification. However, the committee is concerned that the 
military services are not adequately exploring emerging flame-
resistant capabilities and technology that may allow the 
services to expand protection to additional service members at 
a reduced cost.
    The committee notes that the high material costs associated 
with flame-resistant uniforms and accessories have historically 
limited the distribution of such uniforms to military units 
that are preparing to deploy, are currently deployed, and to 
those serving in certain military occupational specialties. The 
committee understands that service members in such units 
require flame-resistant uniforms because of the high risk of 
burn injury posed by the contemporary operational environment. 
While the committee understands that these service members have 
an increased risk of sustaining a burn injury, the committee 
believes that other service members in training and domestic 
operations are also at-risk of sustaining burn-related 
injuries. The committee is concerned that flame-resistant 
uniforms are not available to these service members due to the 
cost-prohibitive nature of the current uniforms.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a study on emerging flame-resistant technologies and 
evaluate whether these technologies can provide cost-effective 
protection to a wider range of service members. The secretary 
shall report the findings of the assessment to the 
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the 
enactment of this Act.

             Training, Travel, and Conference Restrictions

    The committee commends the Department of Defense for its 
efforts to reduce unnecessary expenses. However, the committee 
remains concerned that the Department will exclude strategic 
locations in its efforts to curtail training, travel, and 
conference costs. The committee encourages the Department to 
take appropriate action to reduce costs and recommends the 
Department not exclude specific geographical areas for 
training, travel, and conferences, including those critical to 
our national security strategy or those aligned with the 
Department's strategic guidance.

     U.S. Special Operations Command National Capital Region Office

    The budget request contained $5.0 million for the U.S. 
Special Operations Command National Capital Region (USSOCOM-
NCR) office within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide.
    The committee notes that this funding would have provided 
for an additional USSOCOM Washington, DC-based coordination 
office. The committee understands, however, that based on 
further analysis, USSOCOM has discontinued efforts to develop 
and implement its concept for the USSOCOM-NCR office, and that 
the Secretary of Defense has endorsed this decision. The 
committee further understands that USSOCOM will continue to 
maintain its USSOCOM Washington office at the Pentagon, and 
that it will sustain its current support to the interagency and 
planning process.
    Therefore, since the USSOCOM-NCR requirement is no longer 
valid, the committee denies the requested $5.0 million for the 
office and redirects this funding to more direct operational 
readiness requirements within Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-wide, Flying Hours Program for U.S. Special Operations 
Command.

United States Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and 
                            Families Program

    The budget request included $67.0 million within Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the U.S. Special 
Operations Command (USSOCOM) Preservation of the Force and 
Families (POTFF) program. Of this amount, $48.3 million 
supports the Human Performance Program (HPP) within POTFF. The 
budget request also included $14.8 million within Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, for USSOCOM Behavioral Health and 
Warrior Care Management Program through the Defense Health 
Program. The committee recognizes the tremendous sacrifices 
made by the men and women within the Special Operations Forces 
(SOF) and their families after more than 12 years of war. The 
committee has always made the care of all service members and 
their families its highest priority, including members of SOF. 
The committee notes with concern, however, that suicide rates 
for SOF have continued to increase since calendar year 2010, 
and that for the past 2 years, suicide rates within USSOCOM 
have surpassed those of the military services.
    The committee understands that most suicide prevention 
programs within USSOCOM have focused on training and awareness, 
and that USSOCOM is preparing to expand a pilot peer-to-peer 
training program. The committee also understands and is 
supportive of the many service-provided suicide prevention 
programs that USSOCOM has utilized at the component level. 
While action taken by USSOCOM has been positive, the committee 
is concerned that targeted suicide prevention programs within 
the command remain nascent and slow-moving given the troubling 
suicide statistics across the forces. The committee notes that 
USSOCOM only recently signed and promulgated a force-wide 
Suicide Prevention Policy Memorandum dated March 31, 2014, and 
that, according to USSOCOM, ``suicide prevention efforts have 
been minimal and met as unfunded requirements.''
    The committee is also concerned that, given these increased 
rates of suicides across the force, the POTFF program lacks a 
distinct focus on suicide prevention programs and places too 
much costly emphasis on the Human Performance Program geared 
towards improving physical readiness with costly military 
construction and multi-year service contracts for physical 
therapists, strength and conditioning specialists, athletic 
trainers, and sports dieticians. The committee notes that these 
activities, while related holistically to the well-being and 
mental health of SOF, will likely do little to immediately 
address the high number of suicides currently impacting the 
force. Furthermore, the present POTFF focus on human 
performance and physical readiness places an over-reliance on 
contracts that are unsustainable and cost-prohibitive across 
the Future Years Defense Program, diverting resources otherwise 
required to immediately address suicides across the force. The 
committee notes that of the $67.0 million requested for POTFF, 
only $7.2 million was to support the Psychological Performance 
Program to promote, maintain, and restore the psychological and 
behavioral health of SOF.
    Therefore, of the $67.0 million within Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the USSOCOM Preservation 
of the Force and Families program, the committee recommends 
$25.0 million to support Human Performance Program, a reduction 
of $23.3 million, and $38.1 million to support USSOCOM 
Behavioral Health and Warrior Care Management Program, an 
increase of $23.3 million. In addition, the committee also 
recommends the full amount of $7.2 million for the 
Psychological Performance Program within POTFF. Elsewhere in 
this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require 
a comprehensive review and assessment on prevention of suicides 
among members of U.S. Special Operations Forces.

 United States Special Operations Command Proposed Sponsorship of U.S. 
                           Naval Ship Sumner

    The committee is aware that the United States Special 
Operations Command (USSOCOM) recently requested transfer of 
sponsorship of the United States Naval Ship (USNS) Sumner (T-
AGS 61) from the Military Sealift Command to USSOCOM to support 
near-term maritime requirements for United States Southern 
Command. The committee is also aware that USSOCOM has initiated 
a new-start procurement using current fiscal year 2014 funds to 
begin modifications to USNS Sumner estimated at $8.9 million. 
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 included $20.3 million 
in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to further modify 
and operate USNS Sumner within the United States Southern 
Command area of operations.
    The committee is concerned that the proposed transfer of 
sponsorship of USNS Sumner to USSOCOM and proposed command and 
control relationships are without precedent, and that projected 
costs for the current fiscal year and across the Future Years 
Defense Program will far exceed current estimates. Further, the 
committee has concerns that the requirement is being funded 
only by USSOCOM Major Force Program-11 (MFP-11) funds which are 
limited by section 167 of title 10, United States Code, to 
provide only the incremental funding and acquisition of special 
operations-peculiar material, supplies, and services. Since the 
committee understands that this platform will be used to also 
support the geographic combatant commander theater campaign 
plans such as counter-narcotics, humanitarian assistance, and 
security force assistance, the committee believes that MFP-11 
funding is an inappropriate source for these costly 
modifications and operations, and that MFP-11 is being used to 
supplant activities that should be provided for by the services 
and the geographic combatant commander.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees 
by August 1, 2014, on the proposed transfer of the USNS Sumner 
from Military Sealift Command to USSOCOM. The briefing at a 
minimum should outline:
    (1) The validated requirement as defined by the geographic 
combatant commander;
    (2) Anticipated costs across the Future Years Defense 
Program and funding sources;
    (3) Reason for the use of USNS Sumner, to include a 
business case analysis discussing efficiencies and cost 
savings; and
    (4) Any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate.
    Furthermore, given these concerns, the committee denies the 
requested amount of $20.3 million in Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-wide, to further modify and operate USNS Sumner and 
redirects this funding to more direct operational readiness 
requirements within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, 
Flying Hours Program for USSOCOM.

         Waste Disposal Technologies in Contingency Operations

    The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations prohibiting the 
disposal of covered waste in open-air burn pits during 
contingency operations, except when no alternative disposal 
method is feasible. The committee further notes that the Report 
to Congress on the Use of Open-Air Burn Pits by the United 
States Armed Forces, submitted on May 12, 2010, pursuant to 
Public Law 111-84, stated that ``The introduction of 
incinerators, plus other thermal (to include waste-to-energy) 
and non-thermal waste disposal options, are intended to 
eventually displace the use of burn pits.'' The report 
concluded, ``DoD must continue to explore viable technical 
solutions for waste reduction and waste disposal in all 
categories--solid, medical, and hazardous--and then make such 
solutions available through easily acquired commercial or DoD 
provided equipment.'' To that end, the committee is aware that 
the final burn pit that was being operated in Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan in compliance with Department of Defense and 
U.S. Central Command policies, as required by Public Law 111-
84, was closed in April 2014. Remaining U.S. locations within 
Afghanistan utilize a combination of landfills, incinerators, 
and removal of waste by local nationals.
    The committee is also aware that the Special Inspector 
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has observed 
problems associated with incinerators that have been installed 
in Afghanistan. Such problems include poor construction, 
planning and design, and coordination between contracts for 
constructing the incinerators and for operating and maintaining 
them. The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
is assessing commercial incinerator and other waste-disposal 
technologies to determine the feasibility for use at bases of 
varying size, maturity, and duration. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics to provide a briefing for the House 
Committee on Armed Services not later than March 2, 2015, on 
the lessons learned related to waste-disposal methods in 
contingency operations and provide an update on the 
Department's assessment of waste-disposal technologies, to 
include those that would provide an efficient, reliable and 
deployable capability that adheres to electrical and 
construction standards that ensure life, safety, and health of 
U.S. personnel.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

    This section would authorize appropriations for operation 
and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 
4301 of division D of this Act.

            Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions


 Section 311--Elimination of Fiscal Year Limitation on Prohibition of 
   Payment of Fines and Penalties from the Environmental Restoration 
                            Account, Defense

    This section would eliminate a sunset date for the 
requirement for the Department of Defense to obtain 
congressional authorization before paying fines and penalties 
under the requirement set forth in section 2703 of title 10, 
United States Code. The current requirement for congressional 
authorization does not apply to funds authorized to be 
appropriated to the Environmental Restoration Account, Defense 
after fiscal year 2010. This section would strike any such date 
limitation.

  Section 312--Biannual Certification by Commanders of the Combatant 
 Commands Relating to the Prohibition on the Disposal of Waste in Open-
                             Air Burn Pits

    This section would require the combatant commanders to 
submit a biannual certification to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that 
covered waste under the jurisdiction of the commander has not 
been disposed of in violation of the regulations set forth in 
section 317 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). This section also 
prescribes additional details required in instances of 
noncompliance.

Section 313--Exclusions from Definition of ``Chemical Substance'' Under 
       Toxic Substances Control Act and Report on Lead Ammunition

    This section would modify section 2602(2)(B) of title 15, 
United States Code, to add to the exclusions any component of 
any article including shot, bullets and other projectiles, 
propellants when manufactured for or used in such an article, 
and primers. This section would also require the Secretary of 
the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees not later than September 30, 2015, that would detail 
the costs for the procurement of small arms alternative lead 
ammunition and the qualification of non-lead alternatives, and 
include an assessment of which non-lead variants of ammunition 
exist.

 Section 314--Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative Fuel 
                        Procurement Requirement

    This section would amend section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) to 
exempt the Department of Defense from the requirements related 
to contracts for alternative or synthetic fuel in that section.

Section 315--Congressional Notice of Bulk Purchase of Alternative Fuels 
                          for Operational Use

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
notify the congressional defense committees 60 days before the 
bulk purchase of alternative fuels intended for operational 
use.

           Section 316--Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels

    This section would limit the Department of Defense's 
ability to purchase or produce biofuels until the earlier of 
either the date on which the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public 
Law 112-25) is no longer in effect, or the date on which the 
cost of biofuel is equal to the cost of conventional fuels. 
This section would provide an exception for biofuel test and 
certification and research and development.

Section 317--Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or Construction 
                         of Biofuels Refineries

    This section would require the Department of Defense to 
obtain a congressional authorization before entering into a 
contract for the planning, design, refurbishing, or 
construction of a biofuels refinery.

                 Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment


      Section 321--Additional Requirement for Strategic Policy on 
                Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment

    This section would amend the strategic policy on 
prepositioned materiel and equipment required by section 
2229(a) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure newly 
established crisis response elements are considered when 
developing goals, assessing challenges, and synchronizing 
requirements.

   Section 322--Comptroller General Reports on Department of Defense 
   Prepositioning Strategic Policy and Plan for Prepositioned Stocks

    This section would modify the reporting requirement in 
section 321 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to run through 2017, 3 
years following the initial report due in 2014, for a total of 
four reports over 4 years.

  Section 323--Pilot Program on Provision of Logistic Support for the 
         Conveyance of Excess Defense Articles to Allied Forces

    This section would create a 2-year pilot program allowing 
the Secretary of Defense to provide logistics support for the 
conveyance of excess defense articles to allied forces 
participating in bilateral or multilateral training activities 
with the Armed Forces of the United States. This authority 
would be subject to funding limitations and would expire on 
September 30, 2016. The Secretary of Defense would be required 
to provide a report on the use of the authority to certain 
congressional committees at the end of any calendar year during 
which the Secretary carried out the pilot program.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


Section 331--Repeal of Annual Report on Department of Defense Operation 
               and Financial Support for Military Museums

    This section would repeal an annual report by the Secretary 
of Defense on Department of Defense operations and financial 
support for military museums required by section 489 of title 
10, United States Code.

 Section 332--Report on Enduring Requirements and Activities Currently 
   Funded Through Amounts Authorized to Be Appropriated for Overseas 
                         Contingency Operations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees concurrent with 
the President's budget for fiscal year 2016, pursuant to 
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a one-time 
assessment of enduring mission requirements, equipping, 
training, sustainment, and other operation and maintenance-
related activities of each military department, combat support 
agency, and the Department of Defense currently funded through 
the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget. The provision 
also requires associated funding information and a 3-year 
migration plan to move enduring requirements funding into the 
base budget.
    The committee is concerned about the large portion of 
enduring activities, training, sustainment, and other military 
requirements being funded through amounts authorized to be 
appropriated for OCO. The committee believes the Department of 
Defense is accepting high levels of risk in continuing to fund 
non-contingency related activities through the OCO budget and 
has not fully articulated the scope of enduring OCO-funded 
activities or a clear path forward in migrating enduring 
requirement resources to the base budget.

      Section 333--Army Assessment of the Regionally Aligned Force

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
submit a strategic assessment of the regionally aligned force 
to the congressional defense committees concurrent with the 
submission of the President's budget for fiscal year 2016 
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.
    The committee supports the U.S. Army's regionally aligned 
force (RAF) concept, but has concerns about the 
institutionalization of pre-deployment training, incorporation 
of lessons learned, and the adequate coordination of activities 
between contractors, Special Operations Forces, Army RAF units, 
and joint exercise partners. The committee is also concerned 
about the complexity of utilizing multiple funding authorities 
to support RAF activities and impacts associated with the long-
term commitment of RAF forces to meet security cooperation 
requirements. The committee believes better coordination and 
long-term planning are needed to ensure RAF units maintain high 
levels of core mission readiness while supporting geographic 
combatant commander requirements.
    The committee notes that while elsewhere in this report, 
the committee also directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to assess the RAF concept, more specifically its 
employment in the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility, 
the committee expects the assessment required by this section 
to be a separate and distinct forward-looking, internal 
assessment of the RAF concept, yet inform the Comptroller 
General's work.

   Section 334--Report on Impacts of Funding Reductions on Military 
                               Readiness

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to report to the congressional defense committees 
the readiness and cost impacts of the reductions in operation 
and maintenance funding required in section 4301 of this Act.

          Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority


 Section 341--Limitation on Authority to Enter into a Contract for the 
    Sustainment, Maintenance, Repair, or Overhaul of the F117 Engine

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force 
from entering into a subsequent contract for the sustainment, 
maintenance, repair, and overhaul of the F117 engine until the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics certifies to the congressional defense committees 
that the Secretary of the Air Force has structured the contract 
in such a way that provides the Secretary required insight into 
all aspects of F117 component and subcomponent historical 
usage, cost, service-life, and supply chain management data 
sufficient to determine that the Secretary is paying a fair and 
reasonable price for F117 sustainment as compared to the PW2000 
commercial-derivative sustainment price in the private sector. 
This section would also allow the Secretary to waive this 
limitation if the Secretary determines such waiver is in the 
interests of national security.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


   Section 351--Clarification of Authority Relating to Provision of 
    Installation-Support Services Through Intergovernmental Support 
                               Agreements

    This section would transfer and redesignate section 2336 of 
title 10, United States Code, to chapter 159 of such title. 
This section would also define an intergovernmental support 
agreement and provide other technical changes.

  Section 352--Sense of Congress on Access to Training Ranges within 
          United States Pacific Command Area of Responsibility

    This section would express the sense of Congress regarding 
access to training ranges within U.S. Pacific Command's area of 
responsibility.

      Section 353--Management of Conventional Ammunition Inventory

    This section would designate an authoritative database on 
conventional ammunition and broaden the existing military 
service annual reporting requirements on conventional 
ammunition.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The Defense Strategic Guidance calls for a leaner, more 
adaptable force. The Department of Defense has determined it 
cannot support a standing force for large-scale prolonged 
stability operations but instead will maintain one that can 
quickly deter, defeat, and, if needed, rebuild capacity for 
unforeseen requirements. This means a smaller Active Duty 
force, with a Reserve Component capable of continuing to 
operate as an operational reserve to maintain strategic depth, 
which is reflected in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget 
request. The budget included further reductions in the Active 
Component end strength in the Army, Marine Corps, and Air 
Force, while preserving the Navy at its current level. The 
committee notes the services plan for more drastic reductions 
in end strength and force structure in fiscal year 2016 absent 
a change to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA).
    The Reserve Components will make minor reductions in fiscal 
year 2015; but just as the Active Component, the Reserves will 
be required to take further reductions over the 5-year fiscal 
defense plan, which also could be significantly steeper absent 
repeal of sequestration. As the Active Components reduce end 
strength, the committee encourages the services to ensure the 
proper force structure and resourcing is provided to the 
Reserve Components in order to preserve an operational reserve. 
The committee also recommends that as missions such as cyber 
security, space operations, and unmanned aerial systems 
continue grow, the services incorporate the Reserve Components 
into these force structure requirements to capitalize on the 
expertise of the Reserve Component members.
    The committee understands the situation the Army and Marine 
Corps face in this current budget environment, but remains 
concerned with the planned force reductions for the Army and 
Marine Corps, and with the Navy's continued challenges manning 
the fleet while combat and contingency commitments continue. 
This continued stress on the force, coupled with potential 
further reductions as a result of the BCA's discretionary caps, 
may have serious implications on the capacity and capability of 
the All-Volunteer Force and the ability for the services to 
meet the National Defense Strategy.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                       Subtitle A--Active Forces


              Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for Active Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September 
30, 2015:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            FY 2015              Change from
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
                        Service                           FY 2014                Committee
                                                        Authorized    Request     Recom-     FY 2015    FY 2014
                                                                                 mendation   Request  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..................................................     520,000     490,000     490,000         0    -30,000
Navy..................................................     323,600     323,600     323,600         0          0
USMC..................................................     190,200     184,100     184,100         0     -6,100
Air Force.............................................     327,600     310,900     311,220       320    -16,380
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
  DOD Total...........................................   1,361,400   1,308,600   1,308,600         0    -53,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum 
                                 Levels

    This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end 
strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of 
September 30, 2015. The committee recommends 490,000 as the 
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 323,600 as the 
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 184,100 as the 
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 
310,900 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air 
Force.

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces


            Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for 
Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of 
September 30, 2015:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            FY 2015              Change from
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                        Service                            FY 2014               Committee
                                                         Authorized    Request     Recom-    FY 2015    FY 2014
                                                                                 mendation   Request  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard....................................     354,200     350,200    350,200         0     -4,000
Army Reserve...........................................     205,000     202,000    202,000         0     -3,000
Navy Reserve...........................................      59,100      57,300     57,300         0     -1,800
Marine Corps Reserve...................................      39,600      39,200     39,200         0       -400
Air National Guard.....................................     105,400     105,000    105,000         0       -400
Air Force Reserve......................................      70,400      67,100     67,100         0     -3,300
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
  DOD Total............................................     833,700     820,800    820,800         0     12,900
Coast Guard Reserve....................................       9,000       7,000      7,000         0     -2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of 
                              the Reserves

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of 
September 30, 2015:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            FY 2015              Change from
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                        Service                            FY 2014               Committee
                                                         Authorized    Request     Recom-    FY 2015    FY 2014
                                                                                 mendation   Request  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard....................................      32,060      31,385     31,385         0       -675
Army Reserve...........................................      16,261      16,261     16,261         0         00
Navy Reserve...........................................      10,159       9,973      9,973         0       -186
Marine Corps Reserve...................................       2,261       2,261      2,261         0         00
Air National Guard.....................................      14,734      14,704     14,704         0        -30
Air Force Reserve......................................       2,911       2,830      2,830         0        -81
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
  DOD Total............................................      78,386      77,414     77,414         0       -972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 
2015:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            FY 2015              Change from
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                        Service                            FY 2014               Committee
                                                         Authorized    Request     Recom-    FY 2015    FY 2014
                                                                                 mendation   Request  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard....................................      27,210      27,210     27,210         0          0
Army Reserve...........................................       8,395       7,895      7,895         0       -500
Air National Guard.....................................      21,875      21,792     21,792         0        -83
Air Force Reserve......................................      10,429       9,789      9,789         0       -640
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
  DOD Total............................................      67,909      66,686     66,686         0     -1,223
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 414--Fiscal Year 2015 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status 
                              Technicians

    This section would establish the maximum end strengths for 
the Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual 
status technicians as of September 30, 2015:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            FY 2015              Change from
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                        Service                            FY 2014               Committee
                                                         Authorized    Request     Recom-    FY 2015    FY 2014
                                                                                 mendation   Request  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard....................................       1,600       1,600      1,600         0          0
Air National Guard.....................................         350         350        350         0          0
Army Reserve...........................................         595         595        595         0          0
Air Force Reserve......................................          90          90         90         0          0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
  DOD Total............................................       2,635       2,635      2,635         0          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on 
                  Active Duty for Operational Support

    This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) 
of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve 
Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time 
National Guard duty during fiscal year 2015 to provide 
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count 
against the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section 
412 of this Act unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the 
limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States 
Code.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            FY 2015              Change from
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                        Service                            FY 2014               Committee
                                                         Authorized    Request     Recom-    FY 2015    FY 2014
                                                                                 mendation   Request  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard....................................      17,000      17,000     17,000         0          0
Army Reserve...........................................      13,000      13,000     13,000         0          0
Navy Reserve...........................................       6,200       6,200      6,200         0          0
Marine Corps Reserve...................................       3,000       3,000      3,000         0          0
Air National Guard.....................................      16,000      16,000     16,000         0          0
Air Force Reserve......................................      14,000      14,000     14,000         0          0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
  DOD Total............................................      69,200      69,200     69,200         0          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations


                    Section 421--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
personnel at the levels identified in the funding table in 
section 4401 of division D of this Act.

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to be concerned with the Department 
of Defense's efforts to smartly manage the force. Therefore, 
the committee would provide authority to remove the limitation 
on the number of officers recommended for discharge in a given 
fiscal year in comparison to the number of officers discharged 
the preceding fiscal year and provides the military Secretaries 
the authority to establish specific objectives to best select 
warrant officers for early retirement. Additionally, the 
committee remains concerned during this drawdown that the 
services are able to retain the best qualified service members 
and extends the authority to conduct career flexibility 
programs for service members until 2019.
    In support of military members and their families, the 
committee would provide assistance to local educational 
agencies that are impacted by the enrollment of dependent 
children of military members and Department of Defense civilian 
employees.
    In the area of sexual assault prevention and response, the 
committee would direct several changes to refine the 
fundamental revisions made in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The 
committee would require that appropriateness of command climate 
be included in performance appraisals of commanding officers. 
The committee would further require the Judicial Proceedings 
Panel established under section 576 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to 
review and assess the use of mental health records by the 
defense during preliminary hearings and court-martial 
proceedings under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and in 
civilian legal proceedings.
    In the area of suicide prevention, the committee would 
require the Department to formulate a standardized policy 
governing collection, reporting, and assessing of suicide data 
for Active Duty and Reserve Components members and their 
dependents. The Department has made great strides in the area 
of suicide prevention, and improvement of suicide data 
management will serve as a strong foundation for this ongoing 
endeavor. However, the committee is concerned that while it 
appears suicides among members of the general forces have 
declined, the rate of suicides by members of the Special 
Operations Forces has increased. Therefore, the committee would 
direct a review and assessment of the suicide prevention 
efforts for members of the Special Operations Forces and their 
dependents.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


           Analysis for Change in Basic Allowance for Housing

    The committee is concerned that the Administration's 
proposal to modify the basic allowance for housing to increase 
the out of pocket costs for service members and their families 
up to five percent out of pocket, as well as eliminate the 
stipend for renter's insurance in the calculation for housing 
allowance may have unintended consequences that have not been 
fully explored. The Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission is currently reviewing compensation 
programs, including the basic allowance for housing, and its 
report is due on February 1, 2015. The committee recommends 
that the Department of Defense share with the Commission, the 
analysis, if any, that was conducted on the impact of 
increasing the basic allowance for housing will have on member 
retention, readiness and morale of the force. The Department 
should also share any analysis that was conducted on the impact 
to the housing privatization program, including any impact to 
recapitalization accounts, debt service, operation, maintenance 
and repair requirements and long-term operation of privatized 
projects. The committee looks forward to the results of the 
Commission, including any analysis on the impact of changes to 
the basic allowance for housing for service members.

             Arlington National Cemetery Advisory Committee

    The committee applauds the efforts the Army has taken to 
correct deficiencies in the oversight, management, and 
operations of Arlington National Cemetery. The Army's efforts 
to ensure the final resting place for our Nation's veterans and 
their families represent and demonstrate the highest ideals of 
honor and commitment which is to be commended. The 
establishment of the Arlington National Cemetery Advisory 
Committee provides an independent viewpoint to ensure that 
interests of veterans and surviving family members are taken 
into account. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense 
to continue efforts to ensure that the advisory committee 
maintains a diverse representation of all constituencies and 
the Armed Forces and that the membership is filled to the 
fullest extent possible.

           Briefing on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the 
House Committee on Armed Services on the status of the 
implementation of the sexual assault provisions in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81); the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013 (Public Law 112-239); the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66); and the 
initiatives announced in a memorandum by the Secretary of 
Defense on August 14, 2013. The briefing should include the 
extent to which the services have implemented policies, 
procedures, training, and education as required by Department 
of Defense policies, programs, and regulations. The briefing 
should be conducted not later than March 1, 2015.

 Comptroller General Review of Army National Guard Recruiting Practices

    The committee is concerned with the management and 
oversight of Army National Guard recruiting practices. The 
committee notes a series of issues over the past 5 to 8 years 
with recruiter and enlistment bonus irregularities, and the 
ongoing criminal investigation of the Guard Recruiter 
Assistance Program (GRAP). The committee is concerned that 
regulations and polices set forth by the Secretary of the Army 
and the National Guard Bureau are not being adhered to 
consistently across all of the States and territories.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a review of the Army and Army National Guard 
recruiting regulations, policies, and procedures to determine 
if the Army and Army National Guard have processes in place to 
ensure that these regulations and policies are being adhered to 
by recruiters in the States and territories. The review shall 
include, but not be limited to, the following:
    (1) An assessment of how the Army and Army National Guard 
ensure that eligibility criteria for enlistment are enforced in 
a selected number of States and the impact this may have on the 
recruiting mission;
    (2) An assessment of the number of persons who enlist, 
complete basic and advanced individual training, and remain in 
the Army National Guard for their initial term of service;
    (3) An assessment of the extent to which persons who have 
contracted with a specified enlistment bonus, but were not 
authorized to receive a bonus by policy or regulation;
    (4) An assessment of the average length of time between 
when a person enlists in the Army National Guard and the person 
completes the initial entry training required to be deployable;
    (5) An assessment of the contracting vehicles being used by 
the Army National Guard to support recruiters and how the Army 
National Guard ensures such contracting vehicles comply with 
Department of Defense, Army policies and regulations; and,
    (6) Recommendations for the leadership of the Army and the 
National Guard Bureau to improve and enforce compliance of 
regulations and policies with respect to recruiting.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to report the 
results of the assessment to the congressional defense 
committees by June 1, 2015.

Comptroller General Review of Army Reserve and Army National Guard Non-
                     Availability for Mobilization

    The committee is concerned with the high percentage of 
soldiers in the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard that 
are not available for mobilization. The Army Reserves has 
approximately 25 percent of its force non-available for 
mobilization, with the majority due to medical non-
availability. The Army National Guard has almost 30 percent of 
its force non-available for mobilization, with the two largest 
categories being medically non-available and those who have not 
completed entry level training. As the active Army reduces its 
end strength to potentially 420,000 soldiers, the readiness and 
availability of the Reserve Component to maintain its 
operational focus becomes even more critical. While the Reserve 
Components have made significant contributions to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom over the last 13 
years, only about half of their medical non-available 
population has ever deployed. The committee is concerned with 
the efforts of the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard to 
manage the personnel readiness of their force.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct a review of the Army Reserve and 
Army National Guard non-available population to:
    (1) Determine the extent to which programs, policies, and 
regulations are being followed;
    (2) Assess the management of such forces to minimize the 
impact to unit and individual deployments;
    (3) Evaluate the process by which the Reserves and Guard 
are able to determine the extent and length of the non-
availability of those who have a medical profile and when such 
individuals should be assessed for a medical board 
determination;
    (4) Assess whether the current process to assign 
individuals to units who have not completed their entry level 
training is the best course of action to man the Army National 
Guard; and
    (5) Determine whether there are any systematic issues that 
result in a significant non-available population.
    The Comptroller General is required to submit a report 
containing the results of the review to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not 
later than June 1, 2015. The committee requests the Comptroller 
General also provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the 
initial findings of the review by April 1, 2015.

Comptroller General Review Regarding Department of Defense and Military 
            Departments Professionalism and Ethics Programs

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for 
focusing on military ethics, character, and leadership within 
the Department of Defense. Recently, the Secretary established 
a senior adviser for military professionalism for the 
Department who will report directly to the Secretary on issues 
related to military ethics, character, and leadership. 
Considering the high-profile lapses involving senior leaders, 
the committee remains concerned about how this new position 
will be executed and the roles, responsibilities, and 
effectiveness of the military services' ethics programs. The 
committee, therefore, directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to initiate a comprehensive review of the 
Department of Defense and military departments' programs on 
professionalism, ethics, and integrity in the armed services 
for officers and enlisted service members. The Comptroller 
General should submit a report of the Comptroller's findings to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by not later than August 31, 2015. 
Additionally, the committee requests the Comptroller brief the 
committees on preliminary observations by April 1, 2015. As 
part of the review, the Comptroller General should include an 
evaluation of military service assessment tools and report on 
the extent to which those tools capture and assess 
professionalism, ethics, and integrity issues.

        Continuum of Service and Reserve Component Duty Statuses

    The committee notes the effort the military services have 
initiated to create greater flexibility for movement between 
the Active and Reserve Components, commonly referred to as 
continuum of service. The services have determined that this 
personnel initiative is key to allowing greater flexibility in 
the force. However, the committee notes that the current number 
of duty statuses for the Reserve Components is a hindrance to 
this initiative. The Commission on the National Guard and 
Reserve and the Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 
both recognized this as a barrier to fully implementing a 
continuum of service and recommended the Department of Defense 
reduce the number of duty statuses from 35 to approximately 6. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, not later than January 1, 2015, a proposal 
that would reduce the duty status of the Reserve Components to 
no more than eight pay statutes to assist in creating greater 
flexibility for the Reserve Components to be more interoperable 
with the Active Components.

           Department of Defense Hair and Grooming Standards

    The Secretary of Defense shall not enforce and shall 
evaluate the changes to hair standards and grooming policies 
for female service members, as those contained in paragraph 3-2 
of Army Regulation 670-1, issued on March 31, 2014, and report 
to the congressional defense committees the results of the 
evaluation. The evaluation shall include the opinions of those 
who may have religious accommodation requirements and 
minorities serving in the Armed Forces.

                     Diversity of the Armed Forces

    The committee continues to support efforts by the services 
to ensure diversity among the force. The committee remains 
concerned that the efforts by the services to ensure that our 
Nation's military is reflective of American society are being 
reduced due to the current budget environment. The committee 
understands the challenges that the services are facing, but 
urges the services to maintain, and where possible, increase 
their advertising within minority communities, to support their 
commitment to ensuring a strong diverse force. Recruitment 
advertising within minority communities is an important avenue 
toward building interest and understanding in serving our 
Nation in uniform. The committee urges the services and the 
Department of Defense to maintain a commitment to diversity 
recruiting and retention.

                         Medal of Honor Process

    The committee is encouraged that the Secretary of Defense 
has directed a comprehensive review of military decorations and 
awards. After 13 years of combat, it is imperative that we 
ensure service members have been properly recognized for their 
sacrifices and actions given the changed combat environment. 
The committee urges the Secretary to pay particular attention 
to the Medal of Honor process to ensure that individuals 
nominated for this award have not been hindered by delayed 
submissions or lack of timely action. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense as part of the comprehensive military 
decoration and awards review, to review the nomination process, 
the valor requirements, and the amount of time taken from 
submission of a nomination to approval by the Secretary of 
Defense to enhance the medal awards process. The review should 
also specifically review the Medal of Honor process to ensure 
that the nomination process, valor requirements, and timeliness 
of the process do not unfairly penalize service members. The 
Secretary of Defense should submit the results of the review, 
along with the specific focus on the Medal of Honor process, to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services by June 1, 2015.

       Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System Firefighting Mission

    The committee recognizes the important capability of the 
Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve Modular Airborne 
Fire Fighting System (MAFFS) to assist the National Forest 
Service and State and local agencies fight forest fires. The 
committee believes that the National Guard should continue in 
its role as first responders to civil authorities, since the 
Guard is trained and ready to respond to natural disasters and 
emergencies regardless of State lines. The committee has become 
aware that, as a result of members who were killed while on a 
mission, the Department of Defense is reviewing a policy change 
dictating which authorities the Air National Guard should be 
activated under while in support of these missions. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, 60 days prior to any change in policy, a 
review and assessment of the factors used to make a 
determination of the appropriate duty status for members of the 
Air National Guard under either title 10 or title 32; the 
benefits the member may be afforded under title 10 or title 32 
status; the average response time under title 10 or title 32 
status; any degradation of the readiness of the MAFFS as a 
result of different duty statuses; and any other issues that 
were considered to make a determination on the status under 
which MAFFS is used to response to a natural disaster or 
emergency. In addition, any proposed policy change shall not 
take effect until after the end of the 30-day calendar period 
beginning on the date on which the Secretary provides notice of 
the proposed policy change to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

                     Recognizing Military Chaplains

    The committee recognizes the historical and present-day 
significance of the chaplaincies of the military departments. 
Since General George Washington and the First Continental 
Congress created the Chaplain Corps on July 29, 1775, military 
chaplains have offered spiritual leadership to service members.
    Since the inception of the Chaplain Corps in 1775, over 
25,000 chaplains have served as religious and spiritual leaders 
for 25 million soldiers and their families in every war in 
which America has engaged. Four hundred chaplains have paid the 
ultimate sacrifice and given their lives in service to this 
country; 7 chaplains received the Medal of Honor; 27 received 
the Distinguished Service Cross; and many others received 
Purple Hearts, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars for Valor, and Combat 
Action Badges.
    The committee acknowledges that military chaplains exist 
``to advise and assist commanders in the discharge of their 
responsibilities to provide for the free exercise of religion 
in the context of military service as guaranteed by the 
Constitution, to assist commanders in managing Religious 
Affairs, and to serve as the principal advisors to commanders 
for all issues regarding the impact of religion on military 
operations.''
    The committee commends the chaplaincies of the military 
departments and urges the Department of Defense to support 
chaplains in their efforts to serve and minister to our men and 
women in uniform.

  Report on Need for Uniform Code of Military Justice Punitive Article

    The committee notes the requirement in section 1741 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66) that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives a report containing the recommendations of the 
Secretary regarding the need to amend chapter 47 of title 10, 
United States Code, to create an additional article to address 
violations of the policy regarding prohibited and inappropriate 
relationships between a service member who exercises authority 
or control over a prospective member of the Armed Forces 
undergoing entry-level processing or training. The deadline for 
the report is June 2014. The committee expects the Secretary to 
provide the report by the required due date.

Report on the Sufficiency of Department of Defense Chaplain Guidance in 
        Response to the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 
2015, on the results of a review to determine if current 
Department of Defense guidance regarding an individual, 
ecclesiastical endorsing agent, or religious organization's 
conviction or indictment of a terrorism-related offense or 
other offense threatening national security and their 
participation in the chaplaincy is sufficient to meet the 
recommendations of the Department of Defense Independent Review 
Related to Fort Hood.

             Support to Youth and Charitable Organizations

    The committee recognizes the importance of youth and 
charitable organizations that provide opportunities for the 
young men and women of America and the partnerships fostered 
with the Department of Defense and the military services. These 
relationships provide important training opportunities for the 
services, especially the Reserves and the National Guard. 
Section 508 of title 32, United States Code, establishes 
eligible organizations, and provides the Secretary of Defense 
the ability to designate other youth and charitable 
organizations. The committee encourages the Secretary to 
consider designating any Student Cadet Corps, when requested, 
as an organization eligible for assistance from the National 
Guard.

                     Transition Assistance Program

    The committee applauds the Department of Defense's revamped 
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to provide assistance to 
career ready military members transitioning to a new career or 
further education following military separation. The new 
Transition--Goals, Plans, Success (Transition--GPS) is an 
enhanced program established to assist members with their 
transition as the military draws down. Transition--GPS gives 
the Department the flexibility and authorities required to 
execute its role in providing information, counseling, tools, 
and training for service members to transition from the 
military. While the committee stands by the good work the 
Department has done through Transition--GPS, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to continuously improve and 
build the program. The committee supports the conclusions 
reached by the March 2014 Government Accountability Office 
report, Transitioning Veterans: Improved Oversight Needed to 
Enhance Implementation of Transition Assistance Program (GAO-
14-144), and is specifically concerned with any lack of ability 
for individual unit commanders to participate in TAP and 
continued weakness in outcome measures, making it difficult to 
attribute results to TAP. The committee therefore directs the 
Secretary of Defense to comply with the recommendations for 
executive action listed in the GAO report.

                   U.S. Air Force Academy Reductions

    The committee recognizes the critical role of the U.S. Air 
Force Academy (USAFA) in educating and cultivating the next 
generation of leaders for the U.S. Air Force. The committee is 
aware that the Air Force Academy Superintendent, due to budget 
reductions, is intending to eliminate 10 academic majors and 
multiple permanent staff positions, to include 40 Academy 
Military Trainers (AMTs). This will result in a reduction of 
Academy Military Trainers to 1 per squadron of approximately 
100 cadets. AMTs provide critical services to cadets, including 
counseling, mentorship, and professional training essential to 
the development of Air Force leaders. Additionally, AMTs foster 
a foundation of trust within the cadet squadrons which is 
critical to developing and inculcating the ethics and moral 
values required for service in the military, as well as 
ensuring the well-being of the cadets attending the Academy. 
The committee finds this reduction troubling as the average age 
of a cadet is younger than the average Air Force enlistee. The 
committee is concerned that a reduction of AMTs unnecessarily 
jeopardizes the culture in the cadet squadrons by reducing 
resources for a cadet's professional development and personal 
well-being, which may lead to an increase in misconduct and 
sexual assaults. Prior to any reduction in staff at the Air 
Force Academy, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives, not later than January 1, 
2015, an assessment justifying the need to cut permanent 
military staff in the cadet squadrons. The assessment should 
include the factors the Secretary used to make a determination 
for personnel cuts, how the Air Force Academy will ensure the 
professional development and personal well-being of cadets if 
these cuts are enacted, and any other determinations that were 
considered in the reduction of programs and degrees offered by 
the Air Force Academy.

         U.S. Special Operations Command Education Initiatives

    The committee recognizes the vital role of education in 
developing the next generation of leaders and subject matter 
experts within the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). 
The committee notes the unique role of the Joint Special 
Operations University (JSOU) in developing Special Operations 
Forces (SOF) specific strategic and operational leadership 
within USSOCOM. The committee is aware of an expansion effort 
by the JSOU to include accreditation for bachelor and master's 
degree programs. The committee also notes the increase in 
advanced civilian education initiatives USSOCOM has taken over 
the past 2 years by increasing attendance of officers at the 
Naval Post Graduate School, creating a special master's degree 
program through Kansas State University for officers attending 
the Command and General Staff College and sending officers to 
Johns Hopkins University to obtain a Master of Arts in 
Legislative Affairs. The committee understands the dynamic 
situations in which SOF operate at the tactical, operation, and 
strategic level and recognizes that there are requirements for 
higher education to increase opportunities for success.
    However, the committee is concerned with the validation of 
the requirement for JSOU to offer degrees, as well as the 
increased education requirements for officers that cannot be 
accomplished through the parent service. There are numerous 
degree-granting programs Department-wide, as well as 
partnership opportunities with civilian institutions which may 
meet mission requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense in coordination with the service 
secretaries to provide the congressional defense committees, 
not later than March 1, 2015, an assessment of the validity of 
the course and degree requirements at JSOU, including USSOCOM's 
master's degree requirements for officers. The assessment of 
JSOU should include an analysis of current and proposed JSOU 
programs, including which programs can be accomplished at 
service schools or civilian institutions, and justification for 
JSOU to receive degree-granting authority. The assessment of 
USSOCOM's master's degree requirements should include a review 
of the positions coded as required to hold a master's degree, 
the number of officers who are required to attend fully funded 
master's degree programs on an annual basis to meet the 
position requirements, and the historical promotion rates and 
command selection rates for SOF officers who hold master's 
degrees from fully funded programs and serve in these master's 
degree coded positions. The assessment should also include the 
costs associated with JSOU receiving degree-granting authority 
across the Future Years Defense Program.

             Unmanned Aerial System Transition of Personnel

    The committee is aware that the Federal Aviation 
Administration has selected six Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) 
research and test sites to assess the integration of UAS in the 
Nation's airspace. The committee notes that military trained 
UAS pilots and maintenance personnel have accumulated extensive 
experience operating UASs in a range of environments. With the 
emergence of UAS technology in the civilian sector, the UAS 
industry will need a highly trained workforce of pilots, 
mechanics, and other support personnel. The committee 
recognizes that the services are being forced to reduce their 
force structure, and UAS personnel may need to transition from 
the military to civilian communities. The Department of Defense 
has undertaken efforts to address the transition of service 
members in a number of career fields, such as nursing and 
information technology. Therefore, the committee encourages the 
Secretary of Defense to assess the transition pathway for UAS 
personnel from military service to civilian employment as part 
of the Department's ongoing transition pilot program.

 Use of Reserve Officers Training Corps Scholarships to Increase Cyber 
                           Security Expertise

    The committee notes the efforts the Department of Defense 
has taken to increase cyber security capability and expertise. 
The committee believes it is important to ensure the Department 
and military services are capitalizing on the cyber education 
capabilities in institutions of higher education to train the 
current cyber force, as well as produce future military cyber 
leaders. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of 
Defense and the military services to utilize the Reserve 
Officers Training Corps scholarship program to partner with the 
National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security 
Centers of Academic Excellence program and institutions of 
higher education, for cyber security to ensure the Department 
of Defense can access the requisite number of qualified 
officers into the cyber security field.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally


 Section 501--Authority to Limit Consideration for Early Retirement by 
 Selective Retirement Boards to Particular Warrant Officer Year Groups 
                            and Specialties

    This section would provide the Secretaries of the military 
departments the authority to establish selection objectives for 
warrant officer specialties for Selective Retirement Boards 
(SRBs) convened pursuant to section 581 of title 10, United 
States Code. This authority is necessary to enable the services 
to retain the very best warrant officers in each warrant 
officer specialty and not exacerbate the shortage of warrant 
officers in under-strength and low-density warrant officer 
specialties, as forces are drawn down during fiscal years 2014 
through 2017.

 Section 502--Relief from Limits on the Percentage of Officers Who May 
   Be Recommended for Discharge during a Fiscal Year Using Enhanced 
                Authority for Selective Early Discharges

    This section would amend section 638a of title 10, United 
States Code, to give relief from limits on the percentage of 
officers who may be recommended for discharge during a fiscal 
year using enhanced authority for selective early discharges. 
This section would remove the limitation on the number of 
officers recommended for discharge in a given fiscal year in 
comparison to the number of officers discharged the preceding 
fiscal year. Currently, the number of regular officers 
recommended for discharge cannot exceed 70 percent of the 
number of officers discharged from Active Duty the preceding 
fiscal year.

Section 503--Repeal of Requirement for Submission to Congress of Annual 
Reports on Joint Officer Management and Promotion Policy Objectives for 
                             Joint Officers

    This section would repeal section 667 and section 662(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, removing the requirement to 
submit an annual report to Congress concerning the Department 
of Defense Joint Officer Management Program.

   Section 504--Options for Phase II of Joint Professional Military 
                               Education

    This section would amend section 2154(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to authorize a senior service level course 
of at least 10 months in duration designated and certified by 
the Secretary of Defense to award Joint Professional Military 
Education Level II credit.

  Section 505--Limitation on Number of Enlisted Aides Authorized for 
        Officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps

    This section would amend section 981 of title 10, United 
States Code, to modify the current limitation on the number of 
enlisted aides authorized to support general and flag officers. 
The maximum number of enlisted aides would be modified to be 
the lesser of 300 or the number of enlisted aides calculated 
based on two times the number of generals or admirals and the 
number lieutenant generals or vice admirals on Active Duty the 
preceding fiscal year. Further, this section would require the 
Secretaries of the military departments to report annually to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives the total number of enlisted aides assigned and 
authorized as aides for general and flag officers.

  Section 506--Required Consideration of Certain Elements of Command 
        Climate in Performance Appraisals of Commanding Officers

    This section would require a Secretary of a military 
department to include information regarding command climate 
with regard to allegations of sexual assault and the response 
to the victim of sexual assault by other members of the command 
on the performance appraisal of a commanding officer.

           Subtitle B--Reserve Component Personnel Management


  Section 511--Retention on the Reserve Active-Status List Following 
 Nonselection for Promotion of Certain Health Professions Officers and 
First Lieutenants and Lieutenants (Junior Grade) Pursuing Baccalaureate 
                                Degrees

    This section would amend section 14701 of title 10, United 
States Code, to permit certain first lieutenants of the Army, 
Air Force, and Marine Corps, and lieutenants (junior grade) of 
the Navy, who have twice failed for selection for promotion to 
the next higher grade to be considered for continuation on the 
reserve active-status list. Further, the proposal would require 
the Secretaries of the military departments to retain health 
care professionals who have twice failed for promotion to the 
next higher grade, but who have not completed any service 
commitment incurred as a result of their participation in a 
health professions stipend program under section 16201 of title 
10, United States Code, known in the Army as the Specialized 
Training Assistance Program. These two changes will allow the 
services to selectively continue officers qualified in 
critically short specialties required to provide medical 
support to the combatant commands.

 Section 512--Chief of the National Guard Bureau Role in Assignment of 
   Directors and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air National Guards

    This section would amend section 10506(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to include the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau in the selection and nomination process for the Director 
and Deputy Director of the Army National Guard and Air National 
Guard.

 Section 513--National Guard Civil and Defense Support Activities and 
                            Related Matters

    This section would amend chapter 1 of title 32, United 
States Code, by adding a new section to authorize the use of 
the National Guard to provide assistance to support 
firefighting operations, missions, or activities, including 
aerial firefighting employment of the Modular Airborne 
Firefighting System.

                Subtitle C--General Service Authorities


   Section 521--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel 
          Decisions Relating to Correction of Military Records

    This section would establish procedures for judicial review 
for any final decision regarding records correction made under 
sections 1034(g) or (h) and section 1552 or 1554a of title 10, 
United States Code, by requiring the service member to exhaust 
administrative relief procedures before seeking judicial review 
for correction of military records or decisions granted by the 
boards for the correction of military records. Additionally, 
this section would require that service members be notified of 
their right to judicial review and of the statutory time limits 
associated with judicial review of correction board decisions.

  Section 522--Additional Required Elements of Transition Assistance 
                                Program

    This section would amend section 1144 of title 10, United 
States Code, by requiring any member who plans to use 
educational assistance entitlements under title 38 to receive 
instruction on an overview of those entitlements, courses in 
post-secondary education appropriate for the member and 
compatible with the member's goals, and how to finance the 
member's education. Implementation of this section would occur 
not later than April 1, 2016.

   Section 523--Extension of Authority to Conduct Career Flexibility 
                                Programs

    This section would extend the authority of the Secretary of 
a military department, until December 31, 2019, to carry out 
pilot programs under which officers and enlisted members of the 
Regular Component, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary 
concerned, may be inactivated from Active Duty in order to meet 
personal or professional needs and returned to Active Duty at 
the end of the period of inactivation.

Section 524--Provision of Information to Members of the Armed Forces on 
      Privacy Rights Relating to Receipt of Mental Health Services

    This section would require the Secretaries of the military 
departments to provide information regarding the privacy rights 
of a service member who is seeking and receiving mental health 
services. The Secretary would be required to provide this 
information to service members during initial and basic 
training, and to other members of the Armed Forces as 
determined by the Secretary of Defense.

Section 525--Protection of the Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains 
   to Close a Prayer Outside of a Religious Service According to the 
Traditions, Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing Faith 
                                 Group

    This section would authorize a chaplain, if called upon to 
lead a prayer outside of a religious service, to close the 
prayer according to the traditions, expressions, and religious 
exercises of the endorsing faith group.

  Section 526--Department of Defense Senior Advisor on Professionalism

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
communicate with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives the mission, goals, and 
metrics for the Senior Advisor on Professionalism. This section 
would further require the Senior Advisor on Professionalism to 
conduct reviews of the current programs on professionalism of 
the Department of Defense and the military departments. 
Additionally, this section would require the Senior Advisor on 
Professionalism to submit recommendations to strengthen 
professional programs in the Department of Defense to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.

Section 527--Removal of Artificial Barriers to the Service of Women in 
                            the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
direct the Secretary of each military service to validate the 
gender-neutral occupational standards used by the Armed Forces. 
Each Secretary would be required to work with an independent 
research entity to validate the standards. Further, this 
section would require each Secretary of a military department 
to ensure that properly designed and fitted combat equipment is 
available and distributed to female members of the Armed 
Forces. This section would require the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct a review of services' Outreach and 
Recruitment Efforts gauged toward women representation in the 
officer corps to include current initiatives used by the Armed 
Forces to increase accessions of women into the officer corps, 
new recruiting efforts to increase accessions of women into 
military service academies and Reserve Officer Training Corps, 
and resources and funding required to increase military service 
academy accessions by women and report the findings to Congress 
by April 1, 2015.

  Subtitle D--Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic 
                    Violence Prevention and Response


 Section 531--Improved Department of Defense Information Reporting and 
  Collection of Domestic Violence Incidents Involving Members of the 
                              Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, to develop a 
comprehensive management plan to address deficiencies in the 
reporting of incidents of domestic violence involving members 
of the Armed Forces.

 Section 532--Additional Duty for Judicial Proceedings Panel Regarding 
Use of Mental Health Records by Defense during Preliminary Hearing and 
                       Court-Martial Proceedings

    This section would require the Judicial Proceedings Panel 
established under section 576 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to 
review and assess the use of mental health records by the 
defense during preliminary hearings and court-martial 
proceedings under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. The 
panel would also be required to review the use of mental health 
records in civilian legal proceedings.

 Section 533--Applicability of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
and Related Military Justice Enhancements to Military Service Academies

    This section would require the Secretary of the military 
department concerned to ensure the provisions of title XVII of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66) apply to the United States Military 
Academy, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, and the 
Coast Guard Academy.

  Section 534--Consultation with Victims of Sexual Assault Regarding 
  Victims' Preference for Prosecution of Offense by Court-Martial or 
                             Civilian Court

    This section would require the Secretary concerned to 
establish a procedure to ensure a victim of an alleged sexual-
related offense is consulted regarding the victim's preference 
for prosecution authority by court-martial or a civilian court 
with jurisdiction over the offense.

     Section 535--Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Related to 
       Protections Afforded by Certain Military Rules of Evidence

    This section would authorize a victim of an offense under 
Section 806b of title 10, United States Code, to petition the 
Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus to require the 
court-martial to comply with the Military Rule of Evidence 513 
and 412, if the victim believes that a court-martial ruling 
violates the victim's rights under such Rule.

  Section 536--Minimum Confinement Period Required for Conviction of 
 Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require at a minimum, dismissal or 
dishonorable discharge and confinement for 2 years for sex-
related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

  Section 537--Modification of Military Rules of Evidence Relating to 
   Admissibility of General Military Character Toward Probability of 
                               Innocence

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
modify the Military Rules of Evidence to make clear that the 
general military character of an accused is not admissible for 
the purpose of showing the probability of innocence except when 
the trait of the military character of an accused is relevant 
to an element of an offense for which the accused has been 
charged and may only be used for specified military-specific 
offenses.

   Section 538--Confidential Review of Characterization of Terms of 
  Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces Who Are Victims of Sexual 
                                Offenses

    This section would require the Secretaries of the military 
departments to establish a confidential process for victims of 
a sex-related offense to appeal, through boards for correction 
of military records, the characterization of discharge or 
separation of the individual from the Armed Forces.

  Section 539--Consistent Application of Rules of Privilege Afforded 
                  Under the Military Rules of Evidence

    This section would eliminate the constitutionally required 
exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege which is 
afforded to the patient of a psychotherapist to refuse to 
disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, a 
confidential communication made between the patient and 
psychotherapist.

                 Subtitle E--Military Family Readiness


Section 545--Earlier Determination of Dependent Status with Respect to 
   Transitional Compensation for Dependents of Members Separated for 
                            Dependent Abuse

    This section would provide for an earlier determination of 
dependent child status under section 1059(d)(4) of title 10, 
United States Code. Dependency would be determined as of the 
date the separation action is initiated, when a member is 
administratively separated for a dependent abuse offense. Under 
current law, an individual's status as a dependent child is 
determined as of the date the member is actually separated.

 Section 546--Improved Consistency in Data Collection and Reporting in 
                Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Efforts

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
prescribe a policy for a standard method of collecting, 
reporting, and assessing suicide data involving members of the 
Armed Forces and their dependents, including Reserve 
Components. The Secretary would be required, within 180 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, to submit the 
policy to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives.

 Section 547--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who 
                    Are Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would amend title II of the Service Members 
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 521) to require a court that 
issued a temporary custody order based solely on the deployment 
or anticipated deployment of a service member to reinstate the 
custody order that was in effect immediately preceding the 
temporary order, unless the court finds reinstatement is not in 
the best interest of the child. This section would also 
prohibit a court from using deployment or the possibility of 
deployment as the sole factor when determining the best 
interest of a child.

            Subtitle F--Education and Training Opportunities


   Section 551--Authorized Duration of Foreign and Cultural Exchange 
                Activities at Military Service Academies

    This section would amend sections 4345a, 6957b, and 9345a 
of title 10, United States Code, to allow attendance of foreign 
exchange personnel to the military service academies from 2 to 
4 weeks.

  Section 552--Pilot Program to Assist Members of the Armed Forces in 
                   Obtaining Post-Service Employment

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a pilot program to enhance the efforts of the 
Department of Defense to provide job placement assistance and 
related employment services to eligible members of the Armed 
Forces to assist members in obtaining post-service employment 
and reduce the amount of unemployment compensation being paid 
by the Department of Defense. This section would also require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than 
January 15, 2019, to the appropriate congressional committees 
describing the results of the program and whether the programs 
achieved the results of assisting members in obtaining post-
service employment, the cost per member, and reduced the amount 
of unemployment compensation for ex-service members.

               Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education


  Section 561--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational 
  Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and 
                Department of Defense Civilian Employees

    This section would authorize $25.0 million for the 
continuation of the Department of Defense assistance to local 
educational agencies that are impacted by the enrollment of 
dependent children of military members and Department of 
Defense civilian employees.

Section 562--Authority to Employ Non-United States Citizens as Teachers 
      in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents' School System

    This section would allow the Department of Defense to hire 
a local national who teaches a host nation language course in 
the Department of Defense Overseas School System, if a citizen 
of the United States is not available.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense 
should demonstrate the efforts undertaken to first find a 
United States citizen to teach the native language before 
hiring a non-United States citizen.

    Section 563--Expansion of Functions of the Advisory Council on 
  Dependents' Education to Include Domestic Dependent Elementary and 
                           Secondary Schools

    This section would expand the functions of the Advisory 
Council on Dependents' Education to include the domestic 
dependent elementary and secondary schools of the Department of 
Defense within the continental United States, Puerto Rico, and 
Guam.

 Section 564--Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement and 
               Transition of Military Dependent Students

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
provide grant assistance to non-profit organizations that 
provide services to improve the academic achievement of 
military dependent students, including those non-profit 
organizations whose programs focus on increasing the civic 
responsibility of military dependent students and their 
understanding of the Federal Government through direct exposure 
to the Government.

   Section 565--Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012

    This section would amend section 563(c) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), to extend, by 2 years, the effective date of the Impact 
Aid Improvement Act of 2012. In addition, this section would 
amend Public Law 112-239 by including a method to calculate the 
taxable value of eligible Federal property that is within the 
boundaries of two or more local educational agencies.

                   Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards


   Section 571--Medals for Members of the Armed Forces and Civilian 
Employees of the Department of Defense Who Were Killed or Wounded in an 
    Attack Inspired or Motivated by a Foreign Terrorist Organization

    This section would amend the Purple Heart award to include 
members killed or wounded in attacks inspired or motivated by 
foreign terrorist organizations since September 11, 2001. 
Additionally, this section would require a review of the 
November 5, 2009, attack at Ford Hood, Texas, to determine as 
to whether the death or wounding of any civilian employee of 
the Department of Defense or civilian contractor meets the 
eligibility criteria for the award of the Secretary of Defense 
Medal for the Defense of Freedom.

       Section 572--Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
award the Army Combat Action Badge to a person who, while a 
member of the Army, participated in combat during which the 
person personally engaged, or was personally engaged by, the 
enemy at any time during the period beginning on December 7, 
1941, and ending on September 18, 2001.

Section 573--Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions Pertaining to 
   Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report on the Navy review, findings, and actions 
pertaining to the Medal of Honor nomination of Sergeant Rafael 
Peralta to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

            Subtitle I--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements


 Section 581--Secretary of Defense Review and Report on Prevention of 
    Suicide Among Members of United States Special Operations Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, 
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, to conduct a review of 
Department of Defense efforts regarding suicide prevention 
among members of the Special Operations Forces and their 
dependents. The review would include the feasibility of the 
application of current Department of Defense suicide prevention 
policy guidelines and prevention programs to Special Operations 
Forces, current Armed Forces and U.S. Special Operations 
Command strategies to reduce suicides among members of the 
Special Operations Forces and their dependents, the standards 
for responding to attempted or completed suicides, including 
guidance and training to assist commanders in addressing 
incidents of suicide, among other elements. The Secretary would 
be required to submit the report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 Section 582--Inspector General of the Department of Defense Review of 
Separation of Members of the Armed Forces Who Made Unrestricted Reports 
                           of Sexual Assault

    This section would require the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense to conduct a review to identify all 
members of the Armed Forces who, since January 1, 2002, were 
separated from the Armed Forces after making an unrestricted 
report of sexual assault. The review would seek to determine 
the circumstances of and the grounds for the separation and 
whether the separation was in retaliation or influenced by the 
unrestricted report. The Inspector General would then submit a 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives concerning the results of the 
review within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

    Section 583--Comptroller General Report Regarding Management of 
           Personnel Records of Members of the National Guard

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to submit a report regarding the management of 
personnel records of members of the National Guard. The 
Comptroller General should consider the appropriate Federal 
role and responsibility in the management of these records, the 
extent to which the States have digitized the records, and the 
extent of State and Federal agreements for sharing and 
management of the records. The report shall be submitted to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives not later than April 1, 2015.

Section 584--Study on Gender Integration in Defense Operation Planning 
                             and Execution

    This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff to conduct a study concerning the integration of 
gender into the planning and execution of foreign operations of 
the Armed Forces at all levels and to submit the study to the 
congressional defense committees not later than 270 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.

 Section 585--Deadline for Submission of Report Containing Results of 
Review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity Role in 
                        Sexual Harassment Cases

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit the report required by section 1735 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to the Committees on Armed Service of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives by June 1, 2015.

                       Subtitle J--Other Matters


 Section 591--Inspection of Outpatient Residential Facilities Occupied 
                     by Recovering Service Members

    This section would modify the current reporting requirement 
from an annual basis to at least once every 2 years.

 Section 592--Working Group on Integrated Disability Evaluation System

    This section establishes a Working Group to carry out a 3-
year pilot program to evaluate and reform the Integrated 
Disability Evaluation System of the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The purpose of the pilot 
would be to increase process efficiencies, create a 
standardized form set, eliminate redundancies, improve existing 
process timelines of the Integrated Disability Evaluation 
System, increase service member satisfaction, and establish an 
information bridge between the E-benefits program and the 
MYIDES dashboard.

Section 593--Sense of Congress Regarding Fulfilling Promise to Leave No 
         Member of the Armed Forces Unaccounted in Afghanistan

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
United States has a responsibility to continue to search for 
missing or captured members of the Armed Forces while 
transitioning from combat operations in Afghanistan.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible 
compensation programs are central to maintaining a high-
quality, all-volunteer, combat-ready force. Accordingly, the 
committee supports a 1.8 percent military pay raise for fiscal 
year 2015, in accordance with current law, in order for 
military pay raises to keep pace with the pay increases in the 
private sector, as measured by the Employment Cost Index.
    The committee includes a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to utilize the services of an independent 
organization experienced in grocery retail analysis to assess 
the proposed changes to the defense commissary system. The 
committee is concerned about the efficacy of proposals to 
change the current pricing and business models for the 
operation of commissaries in order to accommodate proposed 
reductions to the commissary budget. The committee requires 
more information from the Department of Defense prior to making 
any changes to the underlying structure of the commissary, 
particularly given that prior studies commissioned by the 
Department of Defense have concluded that pricing adjustments 
and changes to stock assortments as proposed by the Department 
of Defense would not yield the savings or efficiencies to the 
system. Therefore, the committee recommends restoring $100 
million in appropriated funds for the commissary to maintain 
current operations for fiscal year 2015.
    Additionally, the committee is concerned with the raft of 
compensation and benefit changes proposed in the President's 
budget and the effects of the totality of such proposals on 
service members and their families, particularly junior 
enlisted personnel. The committee recognizes that the fiscal 
environment has changed and the Department continues to face 
greater pressure under sequestration-level budget caps, which 
are still in effect for fiscal year 2016 and beyond. The 
committee, nonetheless, believes that a more prudent approach 
to address compensation and retirement proposals would be to 
await the recommendations from the Military Compensation and 
Retirement Modernization Commission to better understand the 
total impact proposed changes will have on efforts to maintain 
the high-quality, All-Volunteer Force. The Commission, 
established by Congress in response to a Department of Defense 
request, is required to provide a comprehensive approach to 
modernize and achieve fiscal sustainability of the compensation 
and retirement systems for the Uniformed Services by February 
1, 2015. In the meantime, to sustain the current All-Volunteer 
Force, the committee continues to support authorities for a 
wide array of bonuses, special and incentive pays, and other 
compensation benefits for an additional year.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances


 Section 601--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary Increase in 
    Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances

    This section would extend for 1 year the authority of the 
Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rates of basic 
allowance for housing in areas impacted by natural disasters or 
experiencing a sudden influx of personnel.

Section 602--No Fiscal Year 2015 Increase in Basic Pay for General and 
                             Flag Officers

    This section would freeze the basic pay rate for 
commissioned officers in the pay grades of O-7 through O-10 
during calendar year 2015.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays


   Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
                     Authorities for Reserve Forces

    This section would extend the authority for the Selected 
Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or 
enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to 
certain high-priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus 
for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment 
and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the 
Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons 
with prior service, income replacement payments for Reserve 
Component members experiencing extended and frequent 
mobilization for Active Duty service, and the authority to 
reimburse travel expenses for inactive duty training outside of 
normal commuting distance until December 31, 2015.

   Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
               Authorities for Health Care Professionals

    This section would extend the authority for the nurse 
officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational 
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the 
Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for 
psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the 
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay 
for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically 
short wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental 
officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the 
accession bonus for medical officers in critically short 
wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental 
specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties 
until December 31, 2015.

 Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 
                          for Nuclear Officers

    This section would extend the authority for the special pay 
for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active 
service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career 
annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2015.

  Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37 
     Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities

    This section would extend the general bonus authority for 
enlisted members, the general bonus authority for officers, the 
special bonus and incentive pay authority for nuclear officers, 
special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities, the 
special health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities, 
hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or special duty pay, skill 
incentive pay or proficiency bonus, contracting bonus for 
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets and midshipmen, 
and the retention bonus for members with critical military 
skills or assigned to high-priority units until December 31, 
2015.

 Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of 
                Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays

    This section would extend the authority for the aviation 
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the 
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for 
active members, the incentive pay for precommissioning program 
members pursuing foreign language proficiency, the accession 
bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus 
for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease 
personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between 
Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates 
until December 31, 2015.

                 Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation


  Section 621--Authority to Enter into Contracts for the Provision of 
                          Relocation Services

    The section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
authorize a base commander to enter into a contract with an 
appropriate organization to provide relocation services to 
members of the Armed Forces.

    Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                        Benefits and Operations


  Section 631--Authority of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities to 
Enter into Contracts with Other Federal Agencies and Instrumentalities 
            to Provide and Obtain Certain Goods and Services

    This section would amend section 2492 of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide the Department of Defense authority to 
provide or obtain food services beneficial to the efficient 
management and operation of the dining facilities on military 
installations offering food services to service members.
    The committee is providing the authority to the Department 
of Defense to authorize the Air Force's current ``Food 
Transformation Initiative.'' However, the committee is 
concerned that the Air Force had initiated this program 
contrary to the limitations under section 2492 of title 10. The 
committee agrees with the Comptroller General's decision that 
the legal interpretation of section 2942 by the Air Force and 
the subsequent decision by the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense to support such an interpretation was wrong; and that 
the program did not meet either the spirit or the letter of the 
law. The committee cautions the services and the Secretary of 
Defense from initiating any additional programs that could be 
construed as an effort to pass appropriated funds through a 
non-appropriated fund instrumentality. In addition, the 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to restrain the 
services from additional creative legal interpretations of 
section 2942 of title 10. The committee reiterates that the 
intent of the change to section 2942 is to allow the 
continuation of the food transformation program, and should not 
be interpreted to allow further innovative legal 
interpretations of the provision.

   Section 632--Review of Management, Food, and Pricing Options for 
                       Defense Commissary System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a review, utilizing the services of an independent 
organization experienced in grocery retail analysis, of the 
defense commissary system. The results of the review shall be 
submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives by February 1, 2015.

  Section 633--Restriction on Implementing Any Department of Defense 
Policy to Limit, Restrict, or Ban the Sale of Certain Items on Military 
                             Installations

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense and 
the Secretaries of the military departments from implementing 
any new policy that limits, restricts or bans the sale of any 
legal consumer product category sold in exchanges or 
commissaries as of January 1, 2014.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Section 641--Anonymous Survey of Members of the Armed Forces Regarding 
            Their Preferences for Military Pay and Benefits

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out an anonymous survey of random members of the Armed 
Forces regarding pay and benefits, including the value that 
members place on forms of compensation, relative to one 
another, including basic pay, allowances for housing, bonuses 
and special pay, healthcare benefits, and retirement pay.

                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee is resolute in ensuring that the Military 
Health System remains a top priority for the Department of 
Defense during the post-conflict shift to readiness training 
and force reduction. The committee recognizes Department 
efforts in preventative medicine, clinical and translational 
research, public health initiatives, and pioneering the health 
care team model. It is imperative that these critical areas 
continue progressing with the same level of commitment in this 
changing landscape in order to sustain the medical readiness of 
our service members. The committee encourages the Department to 
maintain this commitment to solving the complex physical and 
psychological implications of wartime service for the 
foreseeable future.
    The committee remains focused on making certain that the 
Department cost-saving measures are centered on achieving the 
most efficient Military Health System possible before 
significant cost-sharing burdens are placed on TRICARE 
beneficiaries. The current Department proposal to fundamentally 
alter the structure of TRICARE and increase associated fees is 
concerning in light of concurrently proposed reductions in 
compensation. The committee notes the Department efforts toward 
reorganization of the Military Health System, but remains 
unconvinced that current implementation efforts will result in 
the projected cost savings. To that end, the committee includes 
requests for a report to further clarify Defense Health Agency 
implementation plans and a review of Defense Health Agency 
implementation progress by the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The committee is also concerned that the 
Department's plan to reduce or realign Military Treatment 
Facilities will further shift the health care burden to the 
purchased care sector and ultimately increase costs.
    The committee seeks to ensure continued access to care and 
adoption of best practices during the Military Health System 
reorganization. The committee requests reviews on TRICARE 
reimbursement to sole community hospitals, graduate medical 
education billets, and the reduction of TRICARE Prime service 
areas. Moreover, the committee directs the execution of a pilot 
program focused on the improvement of patient medication use 
and outcomes through use of commercial best practices.
    The committee is encouraged by the current downtrend in the 
suicide rate of the Armed Forces and commends the Department's 
diligence in addressing this tragic issue. However, although 
the overall trend is downward, there are certain communities of 
service members who remain at high risk. The committee strongly 
encourages the Department to continue training, research, and 
therapeutics to address psychological health and resilience.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                    AIR FORCE CRITICAL CARE TRAINING

    The committee recognizes the efforts by the Air Force's 
Critical Care Transport Teams (CCATT) to provide vital care 
during the transport of members of the armed services who are 
critically injured. The committee encourages the Department to 
continue supporting the Air Force Centers for the Sustainment 
of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS), the training 
platforms for the CCATT. The C-STARS provide a unique and 
realistic environment for training Air Force personnel who 
treat critically injured members of the armed services. The 
committee supports the groundbreaking research and specialized 
training conducted at C-STARS, which has improved the 
survivability rate of critically wounded service members. The 
committee encourages the Department to continue investing is 
this crucial capability.

 Canine Therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain 
                                 Injury

    The committee recognizes the Department of Defense for 
their efforts to research and document the use of canine 
therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain 
injury. The committee understands that while still 
experimental, canine therapy has shown to be effective in 
treating the psychological symptoms of these conditions. The 
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue 
researching and providing canine therapy for psychological as 
well as other physical conditions affecting the members of the 
Armed Forces.

                    Collaboration on Trauma Research

    Last year, the committee recognized that advancements in 
trauma care are the results of research conducted across the 
public-private spectrum by Federal, academic, and private 
institutions, and encouraged the Department of Defense to work 
with other Federal agencies and the private sector to establish 
a trauma clinical research repository to share and maximize 
critical trauma research data. The committee recognizes the 
significant advances that the services and the Department have 
made in trauma research and treatment on the battlefield that 
would be of great benefit to the civilian sector. The committee 
believes that such transition necessitates a whole-of-
government approach that requires leadership beyond the 
Department of Defense. However, the committee encourages the 
Department of Defense to continue to work with other Federal, 
State, and local governments, as well as academic and private 
institutions to advance trauma research and treatment which has 
a direct impact on readiness of the force.

                      Deployment Health for Women

    The committee recognizes the unique work that the Army's 
Women's Health Task Force (WHTF) is doing to address the 
specific gender health needs of women in the military. The task 
force assessed and made recommendations on six areas of concern 
for women in a deployed environment. These include women's 
health education, barriers to seeking care, uniform and 
personal protective gear design, psychosocial effects of 
deployment, effects of deployment on children and families, and 
sexual harassment and assault response and prevention. Women's 
deployment issues are not unique to this force, which is why 
the committee required a Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
review of women-specific health services and treatment for 
female members of the Armed Forces in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
    The committee believes that the information, expertise and 
experience of the WHTF, as well as the assessment by the GAO, 
should be used as the basis to ensure that the specific gender 
health needs of women in all types of deployed environments are 
being met. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an assessment on the specific gender health needs of 
women in a deployed environment to ensure standardization of 
education and training in women's hygiene and gynecological 
management to enhance readiness for female members; ensure that 
women's health issues are included in leadership training and 
educational programs; provide Clinical Practice Guidelines to 
establish a standardized level of care in a deployed 
environment; and ensure that all services have the ability to 
provide a minimum level of education and training to address 
the specific gender health needs of women in a deployed 
environment.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report 
the results of the assessment and implementation of policies or 
programs necessary to meet the specific gender health needs of 
women in various deployed environments to the congressional 
defense committees by April 31, 2015. The assessment should 
also address the research gaps identified by the Women's Health 
Research Interest Group, and what efforts have been undertaken 
to develop a repository of peer-reviewed research articles 
related to health issues for female service member, 
particularly those in a deployed environment.

           Early Autism Diagnosis and Assistance for Families

    The committee recognizes that with early intervention a 
child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder may make 
significant progress, potentially increasing language and 
social skills as well as mitigating the development of 
problematic behaviors. The committee encourages the Department 
to continue to assist military families with autistic children 
to ensure the availability of the full and expanding range of 
early evidence-based risk assessment and diagnostics, early 
intervention and treatment approaches.

                        Healthy Base Initiative

    The committee recognizes the efforts by the Department of 
Defense to improve the physical and mental health of members of 
the Armed Forces through the Healthy Base Initiative. This 
program promotes the health and wellness of service members, 
families, and civilians through education on how to improve 
nutritional choices, increase physical activity, reduce 
obesity, and stop smoking. The committee encourages the 
Department to incorporate the latest in scientific research on 
topics such as the benefit of antioxidant-rich foods and the 
detrimental impact of smokeless tobacco products, into 
education strategies for the service members and medical 
personnel. The committee further encourages the Department to 
consider a review of continuing medical education training for 
content related to these public health initiatives. The 
committee supports these efforts to promote and develop healthy 
lifestyle choices that will positively affect the health and 
readiness of the Armed Forces and their families.

                Infectious Disease Surveillance Testing

    The committee recognizes the necessity of surveillance 
testing for certain infectious diseases, such as Human 
Immunodeficiency Virus, to maintain the readiness of the Armed 
Forces. The committee understands that the medical community 
continues to advance innovative methods of detection for such 
diseases. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
continuously review its infectious disease screening 
methodology in comparison with current medical practice 
guidelines to provide the most current advances in testing to 
ensure the readiness of military service members.

                      Integrated Scheduling System

    The committee is aware that the Department of Veterans 
Affairs conducted a competition for medical appointment 
scheduling systems in 2013 that required entrants to 
demonstrate their systems' ability to achieve over 200 
requirements and metrics with a focus on integration with the 
Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture 
Electronic Health Record system. The committee notes that the 
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 
simultaneously provide medical care to a small population that 
overlaps both health care systems. Furthermore, the committee 
notes that the Department of Defense Healthcare Management 
System Modernization (DHMSM) program office is currently 
working on an effort to replace its legacy health information 
system with a commercial solution that is modern and 
interoperable with the Department of Veterans Affairs. As the 
DHMSM program office develops its requirements for a final 
solicitation, the committee expects the program office to keep 
the committee informed on the requirements for the new system, 
to include the feasibility of having a requirement for an 
integrated scheduling system that is interoperable with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.

 Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare 
                          in Colorado Springs

    The committee is aware that the Defense Health Agency has 
identified Colorado Springs, Colorado as the fastest growing 
Enhanced Multi-Service Market (EMSM) for healthcare in the 
country. As such, demand for healthcare may exceed the current 
capacity of Department of Defense and Department of Veterans 
Affairs facilities in the region. Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs-civilian partnerships that can 
serve both active duty service members, their families, and 
veterans have the potential to be an effective, cost-saving 
approach to enhancing access to and the quality of healthcare 
services provided by the Department of Defense, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, and the private sector. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to analyze the 
potential benefits of a partnership in the Colorado Springs 
area in order to better address the growing need for healthcare 
services. This analysis should consider the challenges that 
arise from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of 
Defense having different planning and budget timelines, 
authorizations and approval processes, personnel staffing 
authorities and requirements, pharmaceutical policies, clinical 
scheduling policies and procedures, management structure and 
performance evaluations, and provide solutions to address these 
challenge to best leverage the capabilities of the two 
Departments as well as the civilian community. The analysis 
should consider both the benefits and challenges seen in 
previous efforts to consolidate Department of Defense and 
Department of Veterans Affairs' facilities, as well as current 
joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs' 
healthcare projects. The Secretary of Defense should report the 
results of the analysis to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 120 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                           Joint Medical Kits

    The committee recognizes the work of the service medical 
commands and personnel to improve combat casualty care and 
reduce combat mortality over the last decade, which has 
significantly reduced casualties in combat. The committee 
applauds the Defense Health Agency and its Defense Medical 
Materiel Program Office (DMMPO) for ongoing internal efforts 
and collaboration with industry to bolster combat casualty 
care, especially through enhancements in tactical medicine. The 
committee is particularly encouraged to learn of DMMPO's 
pursuit of a Joint First Aid Kit, and supports the prompt 
fielding of a Joint First Aid Kit. The committee also supports 
efforts to assess the requirements for a Joint Combat Lifesaver 
Kit and Joint Vehicle Medical Kits. Joint kits would allow for 
commonality across services to promote safety and efficacy 
during joint operations.

               Military and Academic Research Partnership

    The committee recognizes that after over a decade of 
sustained combat, there have been many strides made toward 
providing service members the most current clinical medical 
treatment. However, the committee believes that it is important 
for both the military services and academia to collaborate 
toward a common goal of continuing to provide our service 
members the best medical treatment available. The use of data 
driven research by military and academic partnerships will 
foster innovative ways to study and monitor medical and health 
issues impacting readiness.
    The committee believes that along with a whole-of-
government approach, it is critical to include academia in the 
effort to improve the readiness of our service members. The 
committee urges the Department of Defense to continue working 
with Federal, State, local, non-profit, and academic 
institutions to expand the network of support needed to promote 
advances in clinical medicine to improve the readiness of our 
Armed Forces.

            Military Contributions to Breast Cancer Research

    The committee supports the Department of Defense efforts in 
improving the prevention and treatment of breast cancer through 
research and clinical care. Section 737 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
directed the Department to conduct a study on the incidence of 
breast cancer among members of the Armed Forces serving on 
Active Duty. The resulting report is to include data important 
to translating this research into clinical practice. The 
committee urges the Department to provide the results of this 
study in an expeditious manner so they may be used, in 
conjunction with other federally funded sources of research-
based recommendations, to guide future Department of Defense 
health policy in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer.

                    Military Health Care Team Model

    The committee recognizes that the Armed Forces utilize a 
health care model that represents the full spectrum of health 
care professionals. The committee notes that this health care 
model includes physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and 
clinical nurse specialists which maximizes taxpayer dollars, 
especially now in an austere fiscal environment. This health 
care team model has been critical to the success of military 
medicine in the deployed setting, resulting in an unprecedented 
survival rate of service members in combat. In addition, the 
committee believes that the training these medical 
professionals receive creates rewarding employment 
opportunities that provide for a seamless transition from 
military service to the private sector when these service 
members transition back to civilian life. The committee 
continues to support the efforts of military medicine to 
improve quality of care and gain greater efficiencies in the 
system.

                Military Innovations in Suicide Research

    The committee commends the hard work of the Army Study to 
Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS). 
This study adds to a growing body of research that seeks to 
decrease suicide by improving the understanding of suicide risk 
factors as well as protective factors. The committee recognizes 
that the Department of Defense stands as a leader in the fight 
against suicide which affects not only service members and 
families, but an increasing number of the Nation's youth. The 
tragic rate of military suicide has highlighted the complex and 
often poorly understood psychological factors that lead to 
suicidal behavior. The Army STARRS research to date is 
contributing to the understanding of the importance of 
resilience in enhancing skills such as problem-solving, impulse 
control, and proper coping mechanisms. The committee commends 
the Army for taking a proactive stance on addressing suicide 
among service members and their families, and looks forward to 
future Army STARRS research outcomes to help inform the 
Department of Defense in developing targeted strategies to 
build resilience in the members of the Armed Forces and improve 
the understanding of psychological health.

      Report on Implementation Plans for the Defense Health Agency

    The Department of Defense has provided the committee with 
three submissions on its plans for implementation of the 
Defense Health Agency (DHA), which became operational on 
October 1, 2013. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
noted in its review of the first two DHA implementation plans, 
the Department's submissions did not include critical 
information concerning the DHA's staffing requirements, cost 
estimates, and performance measures. In its response to the 
GAO's report, the Department stated that it would address many 
of these issues in its third submission to Congress. However, 
as the GAO noted in subsequent testimony, the Department's 
third submission did not fully incorporate this information. In 
addition, the Department's third submission did not include 
sufficient information concerning its education and training 
shared service, including a full explanation of its purpose and 
goals. As a full and complete implementation plan for the DHA 
is necessary to help ensure the Department achieves the goals 
of its reform of the Military Health System (MHS), the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives by January 31, 2015, containing the 
following information:
    (1) Performance measures for each objective and shared 
service that are clear, quantifiable, objective, and include a 
baseline assessment of current performance, and if such 
information has not yet been developed, a timeline for 
developing and submitting such measures in the future;
    (2) An explanation of the potential sources of cost savings 
from the implementation of its shared services projects, 
including estimates of cost savings for each product line 
within the respective shared services;
    (3) A baseline assessment of the current number of 
military, civilian, and contractor personnel currently working 
within the MHS headquarters and an estimate for DHA at full 
operating capability, including estimates of changes in 
contractor full-time equivalents; and
    (4) An explanation of the purpose and goals of the medical 
education and training shared service with regard to its role 
in improving the cost efficiency of delivering training, 
including the challenges it will address, the practices it will 
put in place to address these challenges, and the resulting 
cost savings.

                Review of Defense Health Agency Progress

    After years of studies, reviews, and assessments of the 
governance structure of the Military Health System (MHS), the 
Department of Defense established the Defense Health Agency 
(DHA) on October 1, 2013. The DHA assumed responsibility for, 
among other things, enterprise-wide common tasks handled by the 
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force medical departments, known as 
shared services, as well as their common business and clinical 
processes. The changes to the design of the system along with 
enhanced accountability, will, according to the Department, 
enable continuous performance improvement and reduce the 
projected cost growth of the Defense Health Program. While the 
Department has reported significant progress in the 
establishment of this new agency, as well as efficiencies 
achieved, it remains unclear what specific improvements have 
been accomplished and if the Department remains on track to 
attain its savings and performance goals. Therefore, as this 
new agency reaches a year in existence, the committee directs 
the Comptroller General of the United States to review the 
progress that the Department has made in achieving its goals 
within this year. More specifically, the review should include 
at a minimum a review of the Department's progress in (1) 
achieving cost savings, (2) developing performance measures, 
and (3) determining accurate staffing levels. The Comptroller 
General should issue a final report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 
September 30, 2015, and brief preliminary results to the 
committees by April 1, 2015.

   Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rules for Sole Community Hospitals

    The committee recognizes the vital role of sole community 
hospitals (SCH) in providing high-quality health care for 
service members stationed at rural military installations. The 
committee is aware of recent TRICARE reimbursement policy 
changes for SCHs and would like to understand the impact of the 
change on access to care for service members and their 
families. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller 
General of the United States to review TRICARE's change in 
reimbursement rules for sole community hospitals. The review 
should include at a minimum:
    (1) The extent to which TRICARE's change in reimbursement 
rules for SCH affects access to these facilities by service 
members and their families;
    (2) The extent that TRICARE's change in reimbursement rules 
for SCH compares to the Medicare change in reimbursement rules 
for SCHs; and
    (3) The extent to which the Defense Health Agency is 
monitoring the effects of TRICARE reimbursement rules changes 
on SCH and the subsequent access to care for service members 
and dependents.
    The Comptroller General should submit the results of the 
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives not later than March 1, 2015.

                              Sleep Health

    The committee recognizes that sleep disruption is a 
contributing risk factor to the onset and severity of major 
mental health problems such as depression, bipolar disorder, 
substance abuse, posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain 
injury, and suicide.
    The committee commends the Department for its initial steps 
to leverage investments by the National Institutes of Health in 
the development of the Pain Assessment Tool and Outcomes 
Registry for its use throughout the military health system. The 
committee recommends the continued implementation of the Sleep, 
Activity, and Nutrition program which works to ensure a strong 
and resilient military community. The committee encourages the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the prevalence 
of sleep and circadian disturbances among active military 
personnel and its relationship between mental health, traumatic 
brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain and 
fatigue, substance abuse, suicide, depression, cognitive 
function, and military performance and readiness.

                    Surgical Critical Care Institute

    The committee is aware of the important translational 
research conducted by the Surgical Critical Care Initiative. 
The Initiative, a partnership of Federal, academic, and non-
governmental organizations, strives to improve the care of 
wounded warriors through the investigation and mitigation of 
the short- and long-term physiologic effects of catastrophic 
injuries. As a result of the unprecedented survival rate of 
combat troops with complex and extreme life-threatening 
injuries, the Initiative has applied the lessons learned from 
the care of these injuries to develop biomarkers and 
decisionmaking algorithms that can be applied to combat-wounded 
and other critically ill surgical patients. The committee 
applauds the efforts of the Department of Defense toward 
continuing to advance the care of critical injuries which will 
improve lifesaving measures on future battlefields and 
translate to civilian trauma treatment.

                         US Family Health Plans

    The committee is aware of the important role of the US 
Family Health Plans in providing quality health care, which 
consistently exceeds customer satisfaction expectations, to 
military beneficiaries. The committee notes that the Department 
of Defense strives to provide quality health care to its 
beneficiary population, which has grown significantly over the 
last decade. Given the budget challenges the Department is 
facing, it is important that all segments of the military 
health system make every effort to ensure that they are 
providing the most cost-effective quality services available. 
The committee recognizes the contributions provided by the US 
Family Health Plans to the health of service members and their 
families, particularly retirees. Therefore, the committee 
encourages the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission to address the role of the US Family 
Health Plan during deliberations regarding the future military 
health benefit.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


           Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits


 Section 701--Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would amend section 1074m of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide 
person-to-person mental health screenings once during each 180-
day period in which a member is deployed.

 Section 702--Clarification of Provision of Food to Former Members and 
 Dependents Not Receiving Inpatient Care in Military Medical Treatment 
                               Facilities

    This section would amend section 1078b of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow former members and their dependents to 
receive food and beverages at no cost for those who are 
receiving certain outpatient care in military medical treatment 
facilities.

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration


 Section 711--Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the Military 
           Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities

    This section would permit the Secretaries of the military 
departments to establish cooperative health care agreements 
between military installations and local and regional non-
military health care entities.

  Section 712--Surveys on Continued Viability of TRICARE Standard and 
                             TRICARE Extra

    This section would change the frequency of the reports of 
the reviews submitted to Congress by the Comptroller General of 
the United States regarding the processes, procedures, and 
analysis used by the Department of Defense to determine the 
adequacy of the number of health care providers who accept 
TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra.

Section 713--Limitation on Transfer or Elimination of Graduate Medical 
                           Education Billets

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
transferring or eliminating a graduate medical education billet 
from a military medical treatment facility unless the Secretary 
conducts a review of at least 2 years of the implementation of 
the reform of the administration of the Military Health System, 
examines recruiting and retention of medical professionals with 
regard to the Department's graduate medical education programs, 
determines the assignment of such billets, and certifies to the 
congressional defense committees that any proposed transfer of 
a billet meets the needs of the military departments and 
patients.

   Section 714--Review of Military Health System Modernization Study

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the 
military medical treatment facility modernization study 
directed by the Resource Management Decision of the Department 
of Defense MP-D-01. The report would include the study data 
used by the Secretary and the results of the study with regard 
to recommendations to restructure or realign military medical 
treatment facilities. Further, this section would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States, not later than 180 
days after the Secretary submits the report required, to submit 
a report to the congressional defense committees on the report 
submitted by the Secretary of Defense, to include an assessment 
of the study methodology and data used by the Secretary. The 
Secretary would be prohibited from realigning or restructuring 
a military medical treatment facility until 120 days following 
the date the Comptroller General is required to submit the 
report.

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters


  Section 721--Extension of Authority for Joint Department of Defense-
   Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund

    This section would extend the authority for the Joint 
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
Facility Demonstration Fund until September 30, 2016.

Section 722--Designation and Responsibilities of Senior Medical Advisor 
                    for Armed Forces Retirement Home

    This section would designate the Deputy Director of the 
Defense Health Agency to be the senior medical advisor for the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home to reflect a change in the 
oversight organizational structure subsequent to the 
establishment of the Defense Health Agency. It also requires 
the homes to be in compliance with national recognized health 
care standards.

          Section 723--Research Regarding Alzheimer's Disease

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct research on Alzheimer's disease.

Section 724--Acquisition Strategy for Health Care Professional Staffing 
                                Services

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop and implement an acquisition strategy for contracting 
health care professional services within military medical 
treatment facilities. The Secretary would be required to submit 
a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 
April 1, 2015, on the status of implementation of the strategy.

   Section 725--Pilot Program on Medication Therapy Management Under 
                            TRICARE Program

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to carry 
out a pilot program for at least 2 years at not less than three 
locations to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of 
including medication therapy management as part of the TRICARE 
program. This program would be focused on improving patient 
medication use and outcomes using best commercial practices in 
medication therapy management and would quantify effectiveness 
by measuring patient medication use and outcomes as well as 
health care costs. The Secretary of Defense would be required 
to submit a report of the results of the pilot program to the 
congressional defense committees not later than 30 months after 
the program commences.

        Section 726--Report on Reduction of Prime Service Areas

    This section would amend section 732 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), as amended by section 701 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report on the status of the reduction of 
the availability of TRICARE Prime. The required report would 
include details regarding the impact to beneficiaries of the 
reduction of TRICARE Prime availability, including any increase 
in cost to beneficiaries and the estimated cost savings to the 
Department of Defense.

Section 727--Comptroller General Report on Transition of Care for Post-
          Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct an assessment of the transition of 
care for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain 
injury, to include changes to pharmaceutical treatment plans 
and the benefits and challenges of combining the formularies 
across the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. The Comptroller General would be required to submit a 
report on the assessment to the congressional defense 
committees and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House 
of Representatives and the Senate by April 1, 2015.

Section 728--Briefing on Hospitals in Arrears in Payments to Department 
                               of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to brief the 
congressional defense committees on the process used by the 
Defense Health Agency to collect payment from hospitals outside 
the Department of Defense. The briefing would include a list of 
each hospital that is more than 90 days in arrears in payment 
to the Secretary.

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

                                OVERVIEW

    As part of the committee's long-term institutional reform 
effort, the committee is examining opportunities to improve the 
Department of Defense acquisition system. Despite the 
significant improvements made in the Weapon Systems Acquisition 
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and other recent 
acquisition reform legislation, the committee believes further 
improvements must be made to the Department's business 
practices, particularly at a time when defense resources for 
developing and acquiring weapon systems, products, and services 
are increasingly constrained. In this broad oversight and 
legislative effort, the committee aims to identify and drive 
out disincentives that increase cost and schedule of major 
programs and delay delivery of capabilities to the warfighter. 
The committee believes that any lasting reforms related to 
defense acquisitions will not be successful without a solid 
partnership between both the House of Representatives and 
Senate committees of jurisdiction, the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense, each of the military departments, and the defense 
industrial base. The committee looks forward to working with 
all stakeholders on this comprehensive effort.
    In addition, the committee notes that an annual inventory 
of Department of Defense contracts for services is mandated by 
section 2330a(c) of title 10, United States Code (initially 
codified by section 807 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181)). Although an 
inventory is being provided, the committee continues to be 
disappointed that the Department of Defense has not fully 
implemented the requirement and is failing to analyze the data 
or otherwise use the mandate for collection of data to inform 
decision-making. The committee remains convinced that, if 
properly conducted, the inventory would be an important tool to 
provide transparency in Government contracting and would also 
be a beneficial tool for decision-makers in planning, 
programming, and budgeting for the Department of Defense. 
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
continue to not only improve data collection related to 
services contracting, but to also conduct analysis of that data 
to identify wasteful or excessive spending, duplication of 
efforts, opportunities to implement efficiencies, and areas of 
risk in the defense industrial base. Furthermore, to complement 
the committee's effort to improve the processes by which the 
Department of Defense acquires weapon systems, the committee, 
elsewhere in this title, includes a provision that would direct 
the Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a 
body of work to identify further opportunities to improve the 
Department's processes to acquire contracted services.
    In addition, elsewhere in this report the committee 
includes a provision that would support the intent of the 
Marine Corps to streamline procurement of, and its fielding 
strategy for, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) increment 
1.1, and believes this program could potentially serve as an 
example for future major defense acquisition program reform. 
However, the committee notes this streamlined approach to ACV 
increment 1.1 is contingent on mature technology and validated, 
stabilized requirements. The committee will continue to closely 
monitor this program under the auspices of the committee's 
ongoing comprehensive reform effort.
    Furthermore, as part of the ongoing effort to review the 
processes that often keep the Department of Defense from 
operating efficiently, and unintentionally create barriers to 
meaningful small business participation in the defense 
industrial base, the committee has worked closely with the 
House Committee on Small Business and the House Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. As a result of this bipartisan cooperation, 
the committee includes provisions in this title that would 
remove duplicative processes, erase meaningless distinctions 
between competing programs, leverage procurement best 
practices, and better use the programs already in place.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                Acquisitions Involving Reverse Auctions

    The committee notes that there may be substantial benefits 
to contracting for goods and services through reverse auction 
procedures. However, the committee is concerned that Department 
of Defense personnel, particularly those that are not formally 
designated within the acquisition workforce, may lack 
sufficient training and experience to fully realize these 
benefits. Without adequate training on the benefits and risks 
of utilizing reverse auction procedures as a purchasing method, 
acquisition personnel might miss opportunities to stipulate 
best-value determinations, encourage small business 
participation, or raise other non-price considerations.
    Two studies by the Army Corps of Engineers have posited 
that reverse auctions for construction services do not provide 
savings to the Government and that they increase risk 
associated with such projects. While the Corps has discontinued 
the use of reverse auctions in this area, other agencies 
continue to use reverse auctions for construction services. A 
third study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-14-
408) found that there was inadequate competition in nearly 40 
percent of governmental acquisitions conducted using reverse 
auctions. The report recommended that the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget take steps to amend the Federal 
Acquisition Regulations regarding agencies' use of reverse 
auctions and to issue government-wide guidance for maximizing 
competition and savings when using reverse auctions.
    The committee is also concerned that reverse auction 
procedures and lowest price technically acceptable procurement 
methodologies which are aimed solely at making a purchase at 
the lowest price, may not be the best way to procure personal 
protective equipment and organizational clothing and individual 
equipment, such as body armor components, combat helmets, 
protective eyewear, fire resistant and cold weather clothing 
and footwear. Using price as the deciding factor in the 
procurement of such items may lead to products of an inferior 
quality for the warfighter, and have long-term deleterious 
effects on the industrial base and the willingness of private 
sector firms to develop products and services for the 
Department. The committee believes that there are contracting 
circumstances where best value should be considered a higher 
criteria than lowest price.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to review the 
training and education provided to Department of Defense 
personnel regarding the use of reverse auction procurement 
methodologies, and to revise such training and education, as 
may be necessary, to ensure that Department personnel 
understand the benefits, risks, and appropriate applications of 
reverse auction procedures and lowest price and technically 
acceptable. The Under Secretary should report to the 
congressional defense committees, not later than March 2, 2015, 
on the findings of this review.

Briefing on Impact of Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial 
                    Sales on Industrial Base Sustainment

    The committee is aware that Department of Defense officials 
have suggested foreign military sales (FMS) and direct 
commercial sales (DCS) as a means for the private defense 
industrial base to sustain operations in light of Budget 
Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) mandated 
reductions in procurement spending. The committee is concerned 
that long lead time and current world events make FMS and DCS 
unreliable or financially infeasible for many vendors, 
restricting a significant a path towards sustainability and 
adding an unacceptable level of risk to critical sectors of the 
industrial base. The committee is further concerned that a 
perception of available FMS and DCS opportunities may impact 
service planning to sustain high risk sectors of the industrial 
base.
    Therefore, the committee directs, within 180 days, the 
Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense 
committees on the levels of FMS and DCS factored into 
sustainment plans for the private defense industrial base for 
major acquisition programs. The briefing should include an 
analysis of whether these levels of FMS and DCS are anticipated 
to be met over the remaining years of the BCA budget caps; any 
sectors or major acquisition programs with limited access to 
FMS and DCS; and reason for limited access.

 Briefing on the Impact of the Budget Control Act on High Risk Sectors 
                     of the Defense Industrial Base

    The committee is aware that reductions under the Budget 
Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) and the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-67) will 
reduce procurement spending over the next several years, 
leaving some sectors of the national technical and industrial 
base with a limited number of viable suppliers. The committee 
is concerned that the scheduled end of some major acquisition 
programs, combined with enacted defense funding reductions 
could result in continued financial losses to several high-risk 
sectors, which could force consolidations, decisions to forego 
defense contracts, and facility closures.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to specifically examine the impacts of such budget reductions 
as part of the Department's sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier 
review of the defense industrial base and to ensure that the 
periodic assessments of the national technical and industrial 
base, required by section 2505 of title 10, United States Code, 
include consideration of these reductions. Furthermore, the 
committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing to the 
congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, providing an analysis of 
sectors and tiers of the private industrial base found to be at 
highest risk and how the risk assessment has changed since 
enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2013; an assessment of which additional sectors 
and tiers that might be considered high risk as a result of 
those Acts; and steps necessary to protect those high risk 
sectors and tiers.

 Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense Processes for 
                      the Acquisition of Services

    To complement the committee's effort to improve the 
processes by which the Department of Defense acquires weapon 
systems, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to undertake a body of work to identify further 
opportunities to improve the Department's processes to acquire 
contracted services.
    Over the last decade, Congress has provided new tools and 
capabilities intended to improve the Department's processes and 
oversight of services acquisitions. These include requiring the 
establishment of a management structure and review process for 
high-dollar services; designation of senior managers 
responsible for services contract approval and oversight within 
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics and the military departments; and the 
mandating of an annual inventory of contracted services to 
assist in workforce planning and budgeting.
    The committee notes that the Department has undertaken 
several actions to improve its approach to acquiring services, 
most recently in the Department's Better Buying Power 
initiatives. Nevertheless, in a series of reports issued over 
the past year, the Comptroller General found that the 
Department still did not know the current status of services 
acquisitions in terms of the volume or type of services being 
acquired, lacked reliable data on the projected spending for 
services, had not fully embraced total workforce management 
approaches, and had not fully leveraged its buying power 
through strategic sourcing. With services acquisition 
accounting for more than half of the Department's contracting 
efforts, the committee believes that a holistic assessment of 
the myriad processes that play a role in acquiring services is 
needed if the Department is to fundamentally improve its 
efficiency and effectiveness.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 
continue monitoring the Department's efforts in this area and 
to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the processes and 
procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of 
services to identify opportunities to improve these processes 
and procedures. An initial report on the assessment should be 
provided to the congressional defense committees not later than 
March 1, 2016, with follow-up efforts subsequently briefed to 
the committees as phases of the assessment are completed. At a 
minimum, the assessment should examine:
    (1) The requirements generation, budgeting, and contracting 
processes associated with the acquisition of services;
    (2) How such processes interface with the Department's 
strategic human capital planning processes;
    (3) The Department's efforts to identify and, as 
appropriate, enhance the skills and capabilities needed by the 
workforce to acquire and oversee contracted services;
    (4) The extent to which the Department is acquiring 
contracted services using strategic sourcing; and
    (5) The extent to which the Department's annual budget 
request and future budget projections for contracted services 
are based on current, accurate, and reliable data.

 Comptroller General Review of Compliance with Limitations on Contract 
                           Services Spending

    The committee notes that a Government Accountability Office 
review found that the Department of Defense failed to adhere to 
the enacted limitations on contracted services in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), exceeding the limitations by more than $1.0 billion in 
fiscal year 2012. Moreover, guidance for adherence to the 
extension of the limitations for fiscal year 2014 has yet to be 
issued. The committee is concerned that the Department does not 
have adequate policies, procedures, and controls in place to 
enforce limitations on the annual amounts expended on 
contracted services.
    The committee is also concerned that not all contracted 
services are being subjected to the spending limitations 
because of the exclusion of contracted services involving 
Economy Act transfers between and within Department of Defense 
components. Also, because of the disparity between the levels 
of contracted services captured in the Inventory of Contracts 
for Services, required under section 2330a of title 10, United 
States Code, and what the Department budgets for contracted 
services, the committee concludes that the Department does not 
deliberately plan for most contracted services. At the same 
time the Department exceeded its spending limitations on 
contracted services, the Department furloughed a majority of 
its civilian workforce and, in the case of many Department of 
Defense components, under-executed civilian spending.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to report to the congressional defense committees on the 
Department's compliance with section 808 of Public Law 112-81, 
as amended by section 802 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) for each of the 
fiscal years the limitation has been in effect. The Comptroller 
General should submit an initial report by October 30, 2014, 
that covers fiscal years 2012-13. The final report should be 
submitted by September 30, 2015, and address the Department's 
compliance during fiscal year 2014. The final report should 
include an assessment of the efforts by the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Comptroller) and the Department's financial management 
and acquisition communities to implement effective control 
mechanisms for contracted services spending. Additionally, the 
Comptroller General's review should assess steps taken by 
defense components in executing the reductions to contractor 
performance of inherently governmental functions, closely 
associated with inherently governmental functions, and staff 
augmentation workload in accordance with the provisions of 
section 808 of Public Law 112-81.

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Trusted Foundry and 
                 Supply Chain Risk Management Programs

    The committee recognizes that trusted components, both 
hardware and software, are vital to ensure the security and 
integrity of defense systems. To that end, the Department of 
Defense established a Trusted Foundry program to ensure a 
dedicated supply of trusted microelectronics for highly 
sensitive defense applications, as well as a trusted supplier 
program to provide less advanced microelectronics that still 
require a high degree of trust. The committee also notes that 
section 254 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) required the 
Department to develop a Trusted Defense Systems Strategy to 
ensure that those capabilities were aligned with the policy 
framework needed to enforce the use of those capabilities.
    After 10 years of this capability and policy framework, the 
committee believes that it is important to review the Trusted 
Foundry program, the Trusted Suppliers certification program, 
and other supply chain risk management to determine their 
effectiveness and understand if updates or changes are 
necessary. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller 
General of the United States to review and submit a report to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives not later than February 1, 2015, on the 
Department's program related to trusted foundry, trusted 
suppliers, and other supply chain risk management activities to 
ensure that the program strategy, contracting vehicles, and 
execution are fully supported by clear policy guidance from the 
Department, that such guidance is being followed, and to make 
any recommendations for needed improvement.

Comptroller General Review of Rulemaking Practices of the Department of 
                                Defense

    The committee is aware that the interim rulemaking process 
of the Department of Defense allows for the expedited 
promulgations of rules in certain cases, and that numerous 
factors lead the Department of Defense to issue interim rules 
in lieu of proposed rules. The committee notes that interim 
rules may be issued for a variety of reasons when cause can be 
shown that a standard public notice-and-comment period would be 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 
Such causes include responses to emergencies, expedient 
measures to avert threats to public health or safety, and the 
need to make minor technical or insubstantial changes to 
regulations. However, the committee is also aware that 
overreliance on the interim rulemaking process may limit 
industry participation because that process may not afford 
opportunities to consider industry comments before, or even 
after, the final rule takes effect.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to evaluate the Department's rulemaking 
practices for promulgating acquisition regulations, and 
specifically the issuance of interim rules rather than the 
issuance of proposed rules. The evaluation should include:
    (1) A brief description of current rulemaking procedures, 
including relevant provisions for notice-and-comment;
    (2) An assessment of the frequency with which the interim 
rulemaking process is used by the Department of Defense to 
promulgate acquisition regulations;
    (3) Descriptions of the most prevalent good cause 
justifications given by the Department for using rulemaking 
options other than the proposed rulemaking process; and
    (4) Any recommendations the Comptroller General may have 
for improving constructive communications between the 
Department and industry during the rulemaking process.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the 
House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2015, 
on the results of this evaluation.

           Export Controls and the Small Arms Industrial Base

    As part of the ongoing Export Control Reform Initiative, 
the committee supports expeditious progress toward amending the 
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to revise 
Category I of the U.S. Munitions List (USML) to describe more 
precisely the firearms and related articles warranting control 
on the USML. Category I of the USML currently covers firearms 
(other than non-combat shotguns with barrel length of 18 inches 
or longer) with a caliber up to .50 inches, combat shotguns, 
close assault weapons systems, and related parts, components, 
and accessories. The committee understands that draft 
regulations to revise this Category were developed more than 2 
years ago but have not been further advanced through the 
Federal rule-making process. The committee also notes that 
under the Export Control Reform Initiative, only firearms that 
are inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the 
USML, such as those that possess parameters or characteristics 
that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to 
the United States, should continue to be subject to ITAR. Those 
items that do not warrant USML control would shift to the more 
flexible licensing authorities of the Department of Commerce 
under this reform initiative. The committee is concerned that 
current export controls on firearms may be adversely affecting 
U.S. businesses, including suppliers of the Department of 
Defense, by giving foreign companies a competitive advantage 
over U.S. firms. Therefore, the committee supports review by 
the committee of jurisdiction of the current $1.0 million 
congressional notification threshold for exports of USML-
controlled firearms.

    Independent Assessment of Department of Defense Cloud Computing 
                   Acquisition and Brokerage Policies

    The committee is aware that there are significant cloud 
computing resources in the commercial sector that have resulted 
in reduced data center infrastructure and support personnel, 
leading to cost savings and efficiency for users of these 
services. The committee acknowledged that reality, as evidenced 
by the language in section 2867 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) that 
called for a strategy for transitioning to cloud computing, 
including the utilization of cloud computing services generally 
available within the private sector.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense could 
benefit from that trend, but is concerned that the guidance for 
leveraging commercial cloud services is being developed too 
slowly. The committee believes that an outside review of the 
Department's guidance and planning for cloud computing 
capabilities, including both in-house and private sector, would 
be valuable. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct an independent assessment of the 
Department's policies and guidance for cloud computing 
capabilities and provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 
September 30, 2015. This assessment should include the 
following:
    (1) Whether industry and government best practices are 
embodied in Department of Defense policies and guidance;
    (2) Whether cloud brokerage procedures are clearly 
articulated, commonly understood by service providers, and 
unbiased with respect to the use of in-house government-
provided cloud services;
    (3) Whether security protocols for commercial cloud 
products and services are clearly articulated;
    (4) Whether guidance exists for integration of commercial 
cloud capabilities into the architectural plans for the Joint 
Information Environment; and
    (5) Whether the ongoing commercial cloud pilots are being 
evaluated for cost, performance, and security against 
standardized, consistent, and objective measures of 
effectiveness that are adequately aligned with current 
guidance.

     Industrial Base Risks Associated with Negotiated Standards of 
                               Production

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
depends on multiple unique materials for the manufacture and 
operation of equipment. Without such materials, high-
performance hulls and airframes, advanced targeting and sensor 
equipment, electronic and computing devices, and many other 
important pieces of warfighter equipment cannot be produced. 
The committee notes that many of these materials, such as 
beryllium, have unique characteristics and require specialized 
processing facilities. The committee is concerned that certain 
regulations adopted by other countries are problematic and 
should not be adopted by the United States. Specifically, the 
committee is concerned that negotiated standards of production 
for some of these materials could lead to a loss of capacity in 
the U.S. defense industrial base. Therefore, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to monitor all proposed 
regulatory changes, to identify those that could potentially 
interrupt the supply of materials critical to national 
security, and to notify the United States Trade Representative 
of any concern in a timely manner.

                      Operational Contract Support

    The committee notes that many of the contracting failures 
noted by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, 
the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, 
the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Government 
Accountability Office, and others, were due to weaknesses in 
planning, execution, and oversight of Operational Contract 
Support (OCS) activities. A March 2011 Defense Science Board 
Task Force report, titled ``Improvements to Services 
Contracting,'' specifically highlighted OCS as a ``special 
case'' that needs immediate and focused attention given the 
important role of contractors in supporting military 
operations.
    The committee applauds efforts by the Joint Staff, the 
geographic combatant commanders, and the military departments 
to improve planning, execution, and oversight of OCS 
activities. The committee is aware that the Department of 
Defense conducted a joint OCS exercise in January 2014 designed 
to prepare uniformed and civilian OCS professionals to deploy 
and support any contingency, humanitarian, or operational 
mission. Not only did the exercise provide individual and 
collective training related to OCS activities, but it also 
served as a platform to evaluate and to refine proposed 
revisions to Joint Publication 4-10, which establishes 
Department of Defense doctrine for planning, conducting, and 
assessing OCS integration and contractor management functions 
in support of joint operations. The committee also applauds the 
Department's inclusion of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency in the exercise as a way to promote efforts to improve 
interagency coordination and cooperation in future contingency 
operations.
    While the committee is pleased with the Department's 
efforts to improve OCS planning, execution, and oversight, and 
supports its efforts to conduct annual joint exercises related 
to OCS, the committee is concerned that such exercises have yet 
to be formally included in the Department's budget submission. 
Instead of expressly including funding for OCS exercises in the 
budget, it appears that the Department resources these 
exercises with funding from the Defense Acquisition Workforce 
Development Fund (DAWDF). The committee recognizes that the 
DAWDF was created to ensure ``the acquisition workforce has the 
capacity, in both personnel and skills, needed to properly 
perform its mission, provide appropriate oversight of 
contractor performance, and ensure that the Department receives 
the best value for the expenditure of public resources.'' 
However, the committee is concerned that the use of DAWDF funds 
to support these exercises will perpetuate the notion that OCS 
is a contracting issue and could discourage the participation 
of personnel, outside of the contracting community, who are 
essential to performing OCS planning and management functions.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of 
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure 
that future OCS education, training, and exercises are 
sufficiently resourced in a manner that integrates OCS 
awareness, education, and training into the professional 
development of the entire civilian and military workforce. To 
further integrate military, civilian, and contractor personnel 
into an effective total force, the committee also encourages 
the Department to include contract support scenarios into 
select operational exercises.

                Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain Review

    The committee remains concerned about the Department of 
Defense's ability to mitigate the risks associated with its 
dependence on foreign-sourced rare earth elements. A February 
2014 Department of Defense report titled ``Diversification of 
Supply and Reclamation Activities Related to Rare Earth 
Elements,'' received by the committee pursuant to the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, stated that the 
Department's mitigation strategy for foreign-sourced rare earth 
elements used in Department of Defense weapon systems includes 
``diversification of supply, pursuit of substitutes, and 
reclamation of waste.'' However, a separate February 2014 
report from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development and Acquisition on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), 
also required by H. Rept. 113-102, discussed the lack of 
feasibility of implementing such a mitigation strategy for the 
JSF.
    The committee is aware that the development of many modern 
systems, including the JSF and the AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task 
Oriented Radar, rely on rare earth magnets, and it has come to 
the committee's attention that there are cases where these 
magnets are being supplied by foreign companies. The committee 
finds the Department's use of national security waivers to 
enable continued reliance on these foreign-origin magnets, to 
specifically include samarium-cobalt magnets, troubling, and it 
notes such concern elsewhere in this report. The committee is 
concerned that in relying on foreign companies for supply of 
these magnets, the Department may unknowingly impart knowledge 
of design parameters, performance requirements, and test 
procedures for parts or components in advanced U.S. military 
equipment. The committee is also concerned that the recent 
discovery of Chinese-origin rare earth magnets in the JSF 
supply chain occurred only as a result of compliance 
requirements related to the prohibition on foreign sourcing of 
other elements such as titanium, steel, and zirconium.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the 
Defense Contract Management Agency to conduct an examination of 
the sourcing of rare earth elements in Acquisition Category 
(ACAT) I programs not later than February 1, 2015. In doing so, 
the Director should determine whether an ACAT I program 
contains rare earth elements that are necessary to the 
functionality of that program. If so, the Director should 
determine the country of origin of the elements. If the 
Director has reason to believe that rare earth elements in an 
ACAT I program were manufactured by a foreign entity, then the 
Director should immediately inform the program manager in 
writing, and provide a report of the findings to the 
congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 2015. 
The report may be provided in classified form.

                 Regional Commercialization Activities

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
continues to be challenged in commercializing and transitioning 
technology developed through federally funded research and 
development. The Department has a number of tools at its 
disposal to support these activities, such as the 
Commercialization Readiness Program, the Manufacturing 
Technology Program, and the Mentor-Protege program, but few are 
focused on tapping into the regional innovation centers across 
the Nation.
    The committee understands that the Office of Naval Research 
has funded some initiatives that support the regional 
technology commercialization ecosystem. For example, the 
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research 
provides some administrative support and subject matter 
expertise for small and emerging businesses in diverse fields 
such as agriculture, renewable energy, and health information 
systems. Also, the Hawaii Technology Development Venture is a 
project supporting Hawaii-based technology businesses, as well 
as current and future Department of Navy and Department of 
Defense programs.
    In addition, the committee notes that section 252 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 
Law 112-239) allowed the Secretary of Defense to use the 
research and engineering network of the Department of Defense 
to support the regional advanced technology clusters 
established by the Secretary of Commerce to encourage the 
development of technologies for national security and homeland 
defense challenges. The committee sees such activities as 
useful means to leverage State and local technology 
investments, and encourages the Department to find similar 
mechanisms for supporting the Nation's industrial base for 
emerging technologies.

       Use of National Security Waiver to Specialty Metals Clause

    The committee is aware of recent cases where the Secretary 
of Defense has waived the legal requirement to buy specialty 
metals from American sources, pursuant to the national security 
waiver clause in subsection (k) of section 2533b, title 10, 
United States Code. The committee believes that the national 
security waiver should be used only to provide flexibility to 
the Department of Defense when there is imminent threat of harm 
to U.S. service members or national security interests, not in 
lieu of the other exceptions provided in the clause. The 
committee is concerned that recent use of the waiver has not 
been aligned with this intent, therefore the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense 
committees, not later than December 1, 2014, on the 
Department's use of the national security waiver clause in 
section 2533b of title 10, United States Code. The report 
should include:
    (1) Documentation of all national security waivers issued 
by the Department since 2008;
    (2) The procedures used by the Department to determine 
whether a national security waiver should be issued;
    (3) The procedures used by the Department to determine 
whether a supply deficiency is best addressed through the 
national security waiver or through the availability exception;
    (4) The procedures used by the Department to monitor 
contractor compliance;
    (5) The procedures used by the Department to determine 
whether noncompliance by contractors and subcontractors is 
``knowing or willful'' (10 U.S.C. 2533b(k)(3)); and
    (6) The procedures used by the Department to determine 
whether further action by the Department is necessary to 
prevent the recurrence of the supply chain issue that led to 
noncompliance and the subsequent issuance of a national 
security waiver.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 
                            and Limitations


   Section 801--Extension to United States Transportation Command of 
   Authorities Relating to Prohibition on Contracting with the Enemy

    This section would amend section 831(i)(1) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to add United States Transportation Command to the list of 
covered combatant commands.

  Section 802--Extension of Contract Authority for Advanced Component 
                     Development or Prototype Units

    This section would extend existing statutory authority 
under subsection (b)(4) of section 819 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 10 
U.S.C. 2302 note) until September 30, 2019. This authority 
provides the Department of Defense a ``bridge'' between the 
science and technology portion of a contract awarded under the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation's Broad Agency Announcement 
authority, and the award of a contract under a new acquisition 
for advanced component development or production.

 Section 803--Amendment Relating to Authority of the Defense Advanced 
    Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects

    This section would amend section 845(a)(1) of Public Law 
103-160 (10 U.S.C. 2371 note) to broaden the definition for the 
types of efforts for which other transactions authority might 
be used by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

    Section 804--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount 
                    Available for Contract Services

    This section would extend for 1 year the cap on the 
aggregate annual amount spent on contracts for services through 
fiscal year 2015.

                  Subtitle B--Industrial Base Matters


Section 811--Three-Year Extension of and Amendments to Test Program for 
    Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans

    This section would modify and extend the test program for 
negotiation of comprehensive small business subcontracting 
plans authorized by section 402 of the Small Business 
Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1990 
(Public Law 101-574) and last amended by section 866 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81).
    The committee notes that the test program was authorized to 
allow contracting activities in the military departments and 
the defense agencies to undertake one or more demonstration 
projects to determine whether the negotiation and 
administration of comprehensive subcontracting plans would 
reduce administrative burdens on contracts while enhancing 
opportunities for small business concerns. However, after 
nearly 24 years since the original authorization of the 
program, the test program has yet to provide evidence that it 
meets the original stated goal of the program in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 101-331) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991: ``to be more 
advantageous to both the government and to small and small 
disadvantaged businesses,'' and ``to expand available 
participation in a broader range of subcontracting 
opportunities, especially in the technical area.''
    Therefore, this section would include additional 
requirements to ensure that the test program collects the data 
necessary to assess its effectiveness and to standardize its 
requirements with other subcontracting programs:
    (1) The test program would be expanded to apply to all of 
the small business subcontracting goals, as the committee 
believes that the program was not intended to ignore additional 
subcontracting programs of the Federal Government;
    (2) The threshold for participation in the program would be 
raised from $5.0 million to $100.0 million because the test 
program was intended to apply to contractors with a substantial 
presence in defense acquisition, and all current participants 
exceed this threshold;
    (3) Companies participating in the test program would be 
required to report data by North American Industrial 
Classification System codes, by major defense acquisition 
program, by military department, and by service contract 
exceeding $100.0 million; and
    (4) The requirements for data on the costs avoided as a 
result of the program would be expanded.
    As with other subcontracting programs required by the Small 
Business Act, this section would stipulate that a failure of a 
participant to make a good-faith effort to comply with the 
program will be used as a factor in past performance 
evaluations.
    Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Small Business 
of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate, not later than 
September 20, 2015, with an assessment of the program in order 
to inform any future decision to reauthorize the program.

Section 812--Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned 
                            Small Businesses

    This section would amend section 657 of title 15, United 
States Code, by consolidating the verification and appeals 
processes for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 
(SDVOSB) programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the 
Small Business Administration (SBA), and by moving the 
processes and resources of the SDVOSB verification programs at 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to the SBA. This section 
would also unify the definitions of SDVOSB in section 632 of 
title 15, United States Code, and section 8127(l) of title 38, 
United States Code, and would amend section 8127(f) of title 
38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration specifying 
the manner in which the Secretary shall notify the 
Administrator as to an individual's status as a veteran or a 
veteran with a service-connected disability. These changes 
should allow more efficient and transparent verification of 
small businesses requesting SDVOSB status.

   Section 813--Plan for Improving Data on Bundled and Consolidated 
                               Contracts

    This section would amend section 644 of title 15, United 
States Code, by requiring the Small Business Administration to 
work with other agencies to create and implement a data quality 
improvement plan to promote greater accuracy, transparency, and 
accountability in the reporting of contract bundling and 
consolidation. The committee recognizes that properly labeling 
a contract as bundled or consolidated is important to small 
business competition, as the process of contract labeling 
triggers a series of reviews and mitigation steps that promote 
opportunities for small business. Therefore, this section would 
also require the Comptroller General of the United States to 
initiate a study, not later than October 1, 2018, to examine 
the effectiveness of the required data quality improvement plan 
and report the findings of the study to the Committee on Small 
Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate not later 
than 12 months after initiation of the study.

  Section 814--Authority to Provide Education to Small Businesses on 
            Certain Requirements of Arms Export Control Act

    This section would amend section 21(c)(1) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(c)(1)) by including a requirement 
that applicants receiving grants pursuant to that section shall 
also assist small businesses by providing, where appropriate, 
education on the requirements applicable to small businesses 
under the regulations issued pursuant to the Arms Export 
Control Act (chapter 39 of title 22, United States Code) and on 
compliance with those requirements. This section would also 
amend section 2418 of title 10, United States Code, by 
expanding the Procurement Technical Assistance Program to 
assist small business concerns with education related to export 
controls.

   Section 815--Prohibition on Reverse Auctions for Covered Contracts

    This section would express a sense of Congress that reverse 
auctions, when used appropriately, may improve the Federal 
Government's procurement of commercially available goods and 
services by increasing competition, reducing prices, and 
improving opportunities for small businesses. However, the 
committee is concerned that, if not used appropriately, reverse 
auctions can harm small businesses, reduce competition, and 
render higher purchase prices.
    The committee remains concerned that the use of reverse 
auctions to procure services, such as design and construction 
services, or goods such as items of personal protective 
equipment and specific organizational clothing and equipment, 
may not serve the interests of the warfighter or the taxpayer. 
Therefore, this section would also amend the Small Business Act 
(15 U.S.C. 631) to prohibit the use of reverse auctions for 
procurement of certain goods and services if the contract is 
awarded using a Small Business Act procurement authority. It 
would also limit the use of reverse auctions in cases where 
only one offer was received or where offerors do not have the 
ability to submit revised bids throughout the course of the 
auction. The section further clarifies that the desire to use a 
reverse auction does not obviate Federal agencies from the 
obligation to use a Small Business Act procurement authority.

                 Section 816--SBA Surety Bond Guarantee

    This section would amend section 411(c)(1) of the Small 
Business Investment Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-699) by raising 
the guarantee rate on the Small Business Administration's 
preferred security bond program from 70 percent to 90 percent. 
This should enable greater competition for government contracts 
by small business construction contractors, thereby reducing 
prices for the taxpayer. Data provided by the Small Business 
Administration to the House Committee on Small Business 
indicates that this change can be made at no cost to the 
taxpayer.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


 Section 821--Certification of Effectiveness for Air Force Information 
                         Technology Contracting

    This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff to conduct a review of the Air Force Network-Centric 
Solutions II (NETCENTS II) contract and provide a certification 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives that the NETCENTS II contract is effective 
in delivering information technology capabilities for the joint 
force.

                      Section 822--Airlift Service

    This section would amend chapter 157 of title 10, United 
States Code, by inserting a new section that would require 
transportation of passenger or property by Civil Reserve Air 
Fleet-eligible aircraft obtained by the Secretary of Defense or 
the Secretary of a military department through a contract for 
airlift service to be provided only by a covered air carrier.

  Section 823--Compliance with Requirements for Senior Department of 
     Defense Officials Seeking Employment with Defense Contractors

    This section would amend section 847 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to require the Secretary of Defense to designate an 
official of the Department of Defense to ensure compliance with 
the requirements of that section and would require that, not 
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, such official shall submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report on the Department's efforts to ensure 
compliance with the requirements of section 847.

       Section 824--Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to use 
best value tradeoff source selection methods to the maximum 
extent practicable when procuring an item of personal 
protective equipment or critical safety items. Personal 
protective equipment items include, but are not limited to, 
body armor components, combat helmets, combat protective 
eyewear, environmental and fire resistant clothing, footwear, 
organizational clothing and individual equipment, and other 
items as determined appropriate by the Secretary.

  Section 825--Prohibition on Funds for Contracts Violating Executive 
                            Order No. 11246

    This section would prohibit funding authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available to the 
Department of Defense to be used to enter into any contract 
with any entity if such contract would violate Executive Order 
No. 11246 (relating to non-retaliation for disclosure of 
compensation information), as amended by the announcement of 
the President on April 8, 2014.

    Section 826--Requirement for Policies and Standard Checklist in 
                        Procurement of Services

    This section would amend section 2330a of title 10, United 
States Code, by requiring the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness to implement a standard checklist to be 
used for new contract approval for services or exercising an 
option under an existing contract for services. The checklist 
shall be modeled on the polices and checklist relating to 
services contract approval form (dated August 2012) established 
and in use by the Department of the Army. Finally, this section 
would require the Comptroller General of the United States to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
implementation of the standard checklist for each of fiscal 
years 2015, 2016, and 2017.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


   Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Headquarters 
                               Reductions

    The committee is aware that in July 2013, the Secretary of 
Defense directed a 20 percent reduction in the major 
headquarters budgets of the Department of Defense, and 
announced plans to implement a series of management 
efficiencies and overhead reductions within the Department. In 
December 2013, the Secretary then announced several 
organizational changes and personnel reductions within the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and stated that, 
``every dollar that we save by reducing the size of our 
headquarters and back-office operations is a dollar that can be 
invested in warfighting capabilities and readiness.'' However, 
the committee notes that announcements on organizational 
changes and personnel reductions across the Department's other 
major headquarters organizations have not yet been made.
    The committee has observed extensive growth in the 
Department's major headquarters over the past decade. In a 2013 
review, the Comptroller General of the United States reported 
that the size of the headquarters staff of the geographic 
combatant commands, excluding U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), 
had grown by 50 percent over the past decade. In an ongoing 
review for the committee, the Comptroller General has found 
even larger growth at CENTCOM, noting its support to military 
operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan over the past decade, as well as the functional 
combatant commands, the service secretariats and service 
staffs, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense. The Comptroller General further observed a lack of 
discipline in setting and validating requirements for 
individual headquarters, and a lack of visibility into the 
total resources allocated across organizations for similar 
functions and missions. The growth in bureaucracy at the 
Department is also being examined by the Defense Business Board 
in the context of its review of best business practices in 
human capital management.
    While the committee welcomes the Department's efforts to 
implement management efficiencies and overhead reductions, it 
is concerned that the Department may seek to implement such 
changes and across-the-board personnel reductions without the 
benefit of a comprehensive assessment of mission and functional 
requirements, critical capability and skillset requirements, 
and cost drivers. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes 
a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan to combine combatant command back-office 
functions in order to achieve greater efficiencies.
    The committee appreciates the Comptroller General's reviews 
and believes that further assessment of the data collected by 
the Comptroller General may better inform the Department, as it 
continues efforts to generate cost savings through 
organizational changes and personnel reductions, and the 
committee as it continues to oversee such efforts. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Comptroller General to perform an in-
depth review in order to identify:
    (1) Any trends in personnel and other resources being 
devoted to selected functional areas within and across related 
organizations;
    (2) To what extent the Department of Defense and the 
military services have taken steps to eliminate or consolidate 
overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative functions;
    (3) Whether efforts to date constitute a systematic and 
comprehensive approach; and
    (4) Any additional steps the Department could take to 
realize additional savings.
    The organizations that should be considered in this cross-
cutting review should include, but not be limited to, the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
the service secretariats and staff, the geographic and 
functional combatant commands and their service component 
commands, and the defense agencies and field activities. The 
committee directs the Comptroller General to submit one or more 
reports, as deemed appropriate by the Comptroller General and 
agreed to with the committee, by April 30, 2015, to the 
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

Comptroller General Review of Operational Test and Evaluation Processes 
                             and Activities

    The committee remains concerned over the regularity at 
which an increase in time and funding is required to develop 
and field new weapon systems. To help inform the committee's 
understanding of how operational test and evaluation processes 
and activities may unnecessarily increase schedule and cost of 
major defense acquisition programs, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to review the 
operational test and evaluation processes and activities of the 
Department of Defense and to inform the congressional defense 
committees of the results of that review not later than March 
15, 2015. The review should, at a minimum, examine:
    (1) The processes the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation (DOT&E) uses to select programs for oversight and 
the number and types of programs covered since October 1, 2009;
    (2) The nature and extent of oversight DOT&E conducted or 
is conducting on these programs;
    (3) The extent to which the requirements of subsection 
2339(b) of title 10, United States Code, are applied in such a 
manner that imposes additional operational requirements on 
programs overseen by DOT&E or necessitates testing of 
operational requirements not previously validated by the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council or a military service;
    (4) The benefits of DOT&E oversight on these programs, to 
include enhancements of program performance, reliability, and 
capability;
    (5) Cost or schedule delays in the operational test phases 
of these programs and the resulting cost and schedule delays 
incurred by these programs as a result of oversight processes 
and activities of DOT&E and
    (6) The specific DOT&E criteria, for example, measures of 
effectiveness and analysis, and process to measure 
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of programs.

             Department of Defense Unmanned Systems Office

    The committee believes that an independent organization 
within the Department of Defense to develop and coordinate the 
unmanned air, land, and sea capabilities of the United States 
may provide greater unity of effort, better meet military 
requirements, minimize duplication, and maximize the allocation 
of limited resources for unmanned systems within the 
Department.
    Such an independent organization would aim to improve 
policy and oversight of unmanned systems across the Department; 
coordinate acquisition and research, development, technology, 
and engineering efforts for unmanned systems; make investment 
and budget recommendations for unmanned systems; and make 
recommendations on integrating unmanned systems with existing 
operational concepts and determining new concepts.
    The director of such office would serve as the principal 
advisor to both the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary 
of Defense on matters relating to unmanned systems and as the 
Department's principal liaison to other Federal agencies, the 
defense industry, and centers of research on such matters.
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense to 
brief the House Armed Services Committee not later than August 
1, 2014, on the advisability of establishing such an 
independent organization.

                         Global Response Force

    The committee believes the Global Response Force (GRF), 
currently maintained within the Army's 82nd Airborne Division 
at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is essential to the nation's 
ability to swiftly respond to crises and unforeseen events, and 
to rapidly project military power in support of U.S. national 
interests. As the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
testified to the committee on April 3, 2014, a robust and agile 
GRF capability is needed to ``move more quickly, because events 
unfold more quickly in this world than they ever have before 
and we have [to] be able to get there fast.''
    However, the committee notes that the GRF is dependent on 
assets and support provided by the joint force, and thus its 
mission effectiveness and capacity are limited when such assets 
and support are not equally prioritized by other services or 
elements of the Department of Defense. The committee encourages 
the Department to look more holistically at the GRF to identify 
requirements, assess gaps in capabilities and seams across the 
services, and allocate sufficient resources. It also encourages 
the Department to place greater emphasis on joint planning, 
operations, and training to ensure an effective, integrated GRF 
capability is maintained in accordance with the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Force 2020 construct.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management


    Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 
                Department of the Navy and Marine Corps

    This section would re-designate the Department of the Navy 
as the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change 
the title of its secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and 
Marine Corps. This section would formally recognize the 
responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over 
both the Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' status as 
an equal partner with the Navy.

Section 902--Additional Responsibility for Director of Operational Test 
                             and Evaluation

    This section would amend section 139 of title 10, United 
States Code, by including a new subsection that would require 
the Director of Operational Test Evaluation to consider the 
potential for increases in program cost estimates or delays in 
schedule estimates in the implementation of policies, 
procedures, and activities related to operational test and 
evaluation, and to take appropriate action to ensure that the 
conduct of operational test and evaluation activities do not 
unnecessarily impede program schedules or increase program 
costs.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of 
the operational test and evaluation processes and activities of 
the Department of Defense and to report the results of that 
review to the congressional defense committees not later than 
March 15, 2015.

   Section 903--Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
                              Environment

    This section would establish the position of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment. The 
position would be appointed by the President, by and with the 
advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The committee recognizes 
that the responsibilities of this organization already exist 
within the Department of Defense, reporting to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics. The creation of this Assistant Secretary of Defense 
position shall ensure no net growth in personnel or resources 
for the organization, and shall not be exempt from any directed 
headquarters reductions.

Section 904--Requirement for Congressional Briefing before Divesting of 
            Defense Finance and Accounting Service Functions

    This section would prohibit the transfer of financial 
management functions out of the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service (DFAS) until the Secretary of Defense provides a 
briefing to the congressional defense committees on a transfer 
plan and certifies the transfer would reduce costs, increase 
efficiencies, maintain the timeline for auditability of 
financial statements, and maintain the roles and missions of 
DFAS.

             Section 905--Combatant Command Efficiency Plan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan to combine the back office functions of two or 
more combatant commands and to submit a report on the plan to 
the congressional defense committees within 120 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act. This section would define 
the term ``back office functions'' as those including, but not 
limited to, the administrative and support functions of a 
headquarters of a combatant command. This section would also 
limit fiscal year 2015 funds for the headquarters of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, provides the 
briefing on combatant command headquarters personnel and 
resource requirements that was directed in the committee report 
(H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
    The committee believes a focus by the Department of Defense 
on consolidating or eliminating organizations and personnel 
that perform similar functions and missions, such as 
administrative and support functions, can contribute to cost 
savings and efficiencies within the Department.

   Section 906--Requirement for Plan to Reduce Geographic Combatant 
                  Commands to Four by Fiscal Year 2020

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a non-binding plan to reduce the number of geographic 
combatant commands to no more than four by the end of fiscal 
year 2020 and submit a report to Congress within 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act on the plan, the 
feasibility and risks of the plan, and any recommendations to 
implement the plan the Secretary considers appropriate.

                 Section 907--Office of Net Assessment

    This section would establish the Office of Net Assessment 
(ONA) as a new section in chapter 4 of title 10, United States 
Code, that includes a requirement for the Secretary of Defense 
to establish a separate, dedicated program element for ONA in 
the annual budget materials submitted to Congress. This section 
would also include a statement of policy that the office be 
maintained as an independent organization within the Department 
of Defense responsible for developing and coordinating net 
assessments of the military capabilities and potential of the 
United States in comparison with the military capabilities and 
potential of other countries or groups of countries, so as to 
identify emerging or future threats or opportunities for the 
United States.
    The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense plans 
to realign ONA under the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy. While the committee supports the 
Secretary's objective to have ONA's long-range comparative 
assessments inform and influence the Department's overall 
strategy and policy, it remains concerned that such a 
realignment may ultimately impact the freedom and flexibility 
of the office to examine long-range challenges and non-policy 
specific matters that may not always be in sync with the 
priorities and responsibilities of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy. Furthermore, the committee remains 
unconvinced that such a realignment would produce any 
meaningful cost savings or efficiencies that the Secretary 
hopes to achieve.
    This section would therefore preserve the independence of 
the office, ensure that the head of the office reports directly 
to the Secretary of Defense, and create greater visibility into 
its budget. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends an 
increase in funds for the office.

Section 908--Amendments Relating to Organization and Management of the 
                   Office of the Secretary of Defense

    This section would incorporate a proposal from the 
Department of Defense to make several amendments to title 10, 
United States Code, relating to the organization and management 
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

   Section 909--Periodic Review of Department of Defense Management 
                              Headquarters

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan and submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees within 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act to implement a periodic review and analysis of the 
Department of Defense personnel requirements for management 
headquarters and submit the required plan to the congressional 
defense committees. The section would also modify the status 
report requirements in section 904(d)(2) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66).

                   Subtitle B--Total Force Management


    Section 911--Modifications to Biennial Strategic Workforce Plan 
 Relating to Senior Management, Functional, and Technical Workforce of 
                       the Department of Defense

    This section would amend section 115b of title 10, United 
States Code, to modify the requirement for the Secretary of 
Defense to prepare a biennial Strategic Workforce Plan so as to 
cover ``the senior management workforce'' of the Department of 
Defense rather than the ``senior management, functional, and 
technical workforce (including scientists and engineers).''

   Section 912--Repeal of Extension of Comptroller General Report on 
                               Inventory

    This section would amend section 803(c) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), as amended by section 951(b) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), by 
striking ``2013, 2014, and 2015'' and inserting ``and 2013''. 
The effect of this amendment would be to repeal the requirement 
for the Comptroller General of the United States to report on 
efforts by the Department of Defense to compile and review the 
Department's inventory of contract services within 270 days 
after such inventory has been submitted to Congress. While the 
Comptroller General's work in this area has been beneficial, 
the committee notes that there are other existing mandates for 
reviews and reporting requirements regarding how the 
Department's inventory of contract services is used to inform 
workforce and budget decisions.

     Section 913--Assignment of Certain New Requirements Based on 
                   Determinations of Cost-Efficiency

    This section would require that when assigning a new 
Department of Defense work requirement to military or civilian 
personnel, or to a contractor, the assignment shall be made 
based on a determination of which workforce can perform the 
work in the most cost-efficient manner except in cases where 
the new requirement is inherently governmental, closely 
associated with inherently governmental functions, critical, or 
required by law to be performed by military personnel or 
civilian personnel.

   Section 914--Prohibition on Conversion of Functions Performed by 
 Civilian or Contractor Personnel to Performance by Military Personnel

    This section would clarify when military personnel can be 
used to perform functions that are currently being performed by 
civilian or contractor personnel and would codify relevant 
Department of Defense instruction and policy.

   Section 915--Notification of Compliance With Section Relating to 
                        Procurement of Services

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure compliance with existing law regarding appropriate 
manpower performance and provide written notification of 
compliance to the congressional defense committees. This 
section would also require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a review of such a notification and 
report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days 
after the date of the provision of such a notification.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Section 921--Extension of Authority to Waive Reimbursement of Costs of 
   Activities for Nongovernmental Personnel at Department of Defense 
                 Regional Centers for Security Studies

    This section would amend section 941(b)(1) of the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(10 U.S.C. 184) by extending for 5 years the authority of the 
Secretary of Defense to waive the reimbursement of costs for 
certain nongovernmental personnel at the Department of Defense 
Regional Centers for Security Studies.

   Section 923--Authority to Require Employees of the Department of 
 Defense and Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to 
   Occupy Quarters on a Rental Basis While Performing Official Travel

    This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to 
direct the use of adequate Government quarters, or the use of 
Government-leased quarters or lodging arranged through a 
Government program, by civilian employees and Uniformed Service 
members, while performing official travel. Section 5911(e) of 
title 5, United States Code, currently states that an agency 
head may not require an employee or member of a Uniformed 
Service to occupy quarters on a rental basis unless the agency 
head determines that necessary service cannot be rendered or 
that Government property cannot adequately be protected 
otherwise. This change to title 5 is intended to provide travel 
cost savings and other benefits to the Department of Defense, 
without significantly reducing the quality and security of 
lodging for civilian employees and service members performing 
official travel.

 Section 924--Single Standard Mileage Reimbursement Rate for Privately 
Owned Automobiles of Government Employees and Members of the Uniformed 
                                Services

    This section would establish a rate that provides adequate 
compensation for employees who perform temporary duty travel. 
It would apply to all Federal Government employees and members 
of the Uniformed Services traveling on behalf of the Federal 
Government in a privately owned automobile.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                        Counter-Drug Activities


            Afghanistan Counternarcotics Strategy Post-2014

    The committee recognizes the United States presence and 
mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan after December 
31, 2014, has yet to be announced. The committee notes that the 
production of poppy and the resultant drug trade continue to 
increase and pose a threat to the security and stability of 
Afghanistan. In recent years, Afghanistan has produced 
approximately 90 percent of the world's poppy crop, and the 
level of profit from these crops continues to rise. These 
profits directly fund the terrorist activities of Al Qaeda and 
other dangerous groups that threaten both Afghanistan and the 
United States. The October 2013 Department of Defense Post-2014 
Counternarcotics Strategy for Afghanistan and the Region states 
that, ``Post-2014, it is imperative that the Department 
continue to work with inter-agency and international partners 
to disrupt the flow of illicit drug money to terrorists and 
insurgents, and reduce the corrosive and corruptive impact of 
illicit drug money on regional stability.''
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
include the combating illicit narcotics and illicit trafficking 
mission in its post-2014 Afghanistan presence and mission 
requirements. The committee believes the Department's mission 
to combat narcotics in Afghanistan is an enduring mission that 
must be continued with our international partners to sustain 
security and stability in Afghanistan.

                  National Guard Counterdrug Programs

    The committee acknowledges the significant role the 
National Guard plays in combating illicit narcotics within the 
homeland. The demand for narcotics in the United States 
continues to fund transnational criminal organizations 
globally. The drug trade breeds instability on the Nation's 
border and throughout the country. Through a variety of 
programs to include education, training, and analysis, the 
National Guard provides necessary support to countering drugs 
and their threat to national security.
    In a fiscally constrained environment, prioritizing limited 
resources is essential. Therefore, the committee encourages the 
National Guard to prioritize its counterdrug programs to 
maximize the use of limited funds. The committee is aware that 
the National Guard uses a threat-based resource model to 
determine the highest at-risk States and regions of the United 
States for which to focus resources. The committee believes the 
National Guard should leverage this model to prioritize its 
counterdrug programs and resources. The committee also 
encourages the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to continue evaluating how 
to best use limited counterdrug resources to more effectively 
combat illicit narcotics within the homeland.

                 U.S. Southern Command Asset Resourcing

    The committee continues to be discouraged by asset 
resourcing in U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). In particular, 
the committee is concerned that a shortfall in maritime, 
aerial, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
(ISR) assets in the region hampers SOUTHCOM's ability to combat 
the illicit networking of drugs, weapons, humans, and money, 
and affects security and stability along the southern border of 
the United States.
    While the Office of National Drug Control Policy's whole-
of-government goal is to remove 40 percent of narcotics 
transiting to the United States through SOUTHCOM's area of 
responsibility (AOR) by fiscal year 2015, the committee notes 
that this goal is unlikely to be met, in large part because 
resources allocated to the region to address this goal are 
continuing to diminish. In testimony before the committee in 
February 2014, the commander of SOUTHCOM expressed his concern 
about U.S. asset shortfalls in the region to meet the command's 
assigned missions derived from this whole-of-government goal, 
among others. Specifically, the commander testified that 
SOUTHCOM requires a 16.0 ship presence to support the command's 
assigned missions. In contrast, the commander estimates that, 
in fiscal year 2015, SOUTHCOM will maintain a sporadic 3.0 ship 
presence. Similarly, the commander of SOUTHCOM, before the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2014, estimated 
that in fiscal year 2015, the command will satisfy only 5 
percent of its ISR requirements associated with combating 
transnational organized crime.
    The committee recognizes that the cost of combating illicit 
drug and other networks is exponentially lower, and the 
associated violence levels minimal, outside the United States 
as compared to inside the Nation. Therefore, in order to more 
effectively interdict narcotics and combat other illicit 
networks and transnational criminal organizations in the 
region, the Department of Defense must prioritize the detection 
and monitoring mission in SOUTHCOM.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
February 1, 2015, on the Department's updated strategy to 
combat illicit drug networks, other illicit networks, and 
transnational criminal organizations, in the SOUTHCOM AOR. The 
strategy should include an identification of requirements, 
assessment of capability gaps and shortfalls, assessment of 
assets and resources necessary to address the gaps and 
shortfalls, and plan for allocating those assets and resources. 
Lastly, the strategy should include an assessment of and cost 
estimate for alternative platforms, including maritime and 
aerial platforms, that could also satisfy the command's 
detection and monitoring requirements.

                             Other Matters


                          Army Force Structure

    The committee believes the Army's current requirement to 
further reduce planned end strength and force structure by 
fiscal year 2019 is a direct consequence of the Budget Control 
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). The committee notes the Army's 
current plan would reduce the Active Component end strength 
from a wartime high of 570,000 soldiers to 450,000 soldiers 
with a potential further reduction to 420,000 soldiers absent 
repeal of sequestration-level budget caps in fiscal year 2016.
    As a result, the committee understands the Army is also 
reducing active brigade combat teams from 45 to 32 and 
divesting almost 700 aircraft, as well as eliminating 3 combat 
aviation brigades. The Army's plan would also reduce Army 
National Guard end strength from 358,000 soldiers to 335,000 
soldiers with a potential further reduction to 315,000 soldiers 
absent repeal of sequestration-level budget caps. The committee 
understands the Army National Guard would be required to divest 
its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, effectively transferring 
these assets to the Active Component, as well as divest its OH-
58 Kiowa Warriors Scout Reconnaissance helicopters. However, 
the committee understands the Army National Guard would receive 
111 UH-60 Black Hawk L and M model utility helicopters from the 
Active Component to improve the Guard's capabilities to perform 
title 32 crisis response and defense support to civil authority 
missions. Therefore, the committee expects that those units 
that transfer AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to the active 
Army will receive priority for modernized Black Hawks which 
should be at a minimum in the UH-60 Black Hawk L model utility 
helicopter configuration.
    In testimony before the committee, the Secretary of the 
Army and Chief of Staff of the Army officially stated their 
concerns regarding the potential inability of the U.S. Army to 
meet the requirements of the current National Military Strategy 
and execute operational plans absent a repeal of sequestration-
level budget caps in fiscal year 2016. The committee remains 
concerned by this testimony and believes that in order to 
mitigate the increased strategic risk generated by the Budget 
Control Act of 2011, the Army is being forced to reduce end 
strength to preserve near-term readiness through the Future 
Years Defense Program. The committee is concerned with the 
planned reductions and realignments the Army has proposed, 
specifically the greater reductions in Active Component end 
strength and brigade combat teams, as well as the proposed 
aviation realignment of combat aviation aircraft. Therefore, 
elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that 
would require a Comptroller General of the United States review 
of the methods the Army and the Department of Defense Office of 
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation used to determine the 
future force structure of the Army, to include the appropriate 
mix between Active, Guard, and Reserve Component forces. The 
committee also recommends increases in funding for procurement 
and operation and maintenance accounts to accelerate the 
conversions of UH-60A to UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, and 
also recommends additional funding to procure six additional 
UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters to address Army National Guard 
modernization shortfalls. Finally, the committee recommends 
additional funding for operation and maintenance readiness 
accounts to increase overall training opportunities and 
increase depot-level maintenance in the Army National Guard.

              Assessment of Counterfeit Detection Efforts

    The committee recognizes the challenges posed to the 
Department of Defense in identifying and mitigating the 
presence of counterfeit parts in its supply chain. Section 818 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81) was an important step in establishing 
policy, guidance, and compliance reporting to move the 
Department forward in addressing the detection and mitigation 
of counterfeit parts, including microelectronics. The committee 
believes that it is important to take stock of the actions that 
have been taken to date and to evaluate their effectiveness.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a 
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 
1, 2014, assessing the approaches currently taken to mitigate 
counterfeit parts in the supply system. The briefing should 
include the following:
    (1) A cost benefit assessment of current compliance and 
technology measures for mitigating counterfeit parts, including 
microelectronics, in the supply chain, and requirements for 
deoxyribonucleic acid authentication marking. This assessment 
should include costs associated with program implementation and 
the scope of components that are being addressed by these 
measures;
    (2) An assessment of the costs and benefits of expanding 
these measures to additional classes of technology, which have 
been deemed at high risk for counterfeiting;
    (3) An analysis of the quantity of alerts and problem 
advisories reporting counterfeit electronic parts in the 
Government Industry Data Exchange Program since January 2011 
that were a result of the use of the measures described in item 
(1) above; and
    (4) A description and analysis of the Department of 
Defense's efforts to collaborate and coordinate with the 
defense industrial base on the development of standards 
associated with the prevention, detection, and responses to the 
threat of counterfeit electronic parts in the military supply 
system.

                     Cargo Unmanned Aerial Systems

    The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to develop and 
demonstrate cargo unmanned aerial systems to support logistics, 
sustainment, and re-supply missions in intra-theater operations 
where the use of high-value manned aircraft or ground convoys 
to resupply troops is uneconomical, dangerous or accomplished 
with difficulty. The committee is also aware that since 
December 2011, the Department of Defense has been conducting a 
Military User Assessment (MUA) of unmanned cargo helicopters 
for supply missions in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and 
that this MUA was the result of a merit based competitive 
selection. However, the committee is concerned that a 
Department of Defense program of record and associated funding 
has not been established to transition this advanced 
demonstration program into a fielded program of record. 
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to implement 
a program of record for this unmanned cargo helicopter system 
as part of the fiscal year 2016 budget submission. In addition, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later 
than October 1, 2014, on its plans to potentially create cargo 
unmanned aerial systems programs of record.

 Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Antiterrorism and 
                        Force Protection Efforts

    The committee recognizes that there have been an increasing 
number of insider attacks on U.S. military bases in recent 
years. In November of 2009, 13 people were killed and 43 others 
wounded when a soldier opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas. The 
committee notes that following this shooting at Fort Hood, the 
Secretary of Defense established the Department of Defense 
Independent Review Related to Fort Hood. The review board 
presented its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of 
Defense in January 2010. In completing its review, the review 
board limited the depth of its study in certain areas, 
including force protection roles and responsibilities and 
threat assessment programs, based on the Secretary of Defense's 
stated intent to have the military departments conduct in-depth 
follow-on reviews. However, the committee is concerned that 
more incidents have occurred since this incident, including a 
shooting at the Washington Navy Yard in September of 2013, as 
well as a second shooting at Fort Hood in April of 2014.
    The committee recognizes that insider attacks, such as 
these, pose a different challenge to Department of Defense's 
traditional antiterrorism and force protection efforts that 
address external threats. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
comprehensive review of the inside-the-wire, antiterrorism and 
force protection efforts of the Department of Defense, and 
submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by 
March 30, 2015. The review should address the following areas:
    (1) The extent to which the Department of Defense has 
implemented the recommendations identified in the Department's 
Independent Review Related to Fort Hood;
    (2) The status of the follow-on studies to be completed by 
the military departments and to what extent have any 
recommendations from these studies been implemented;
    (3) Additional actions taken by individual installations, 
and the extent to which these efforts have been shared with 
other installations; and
    (4) The extent to which the Department's current 
antiterrorism and force protection policies, guidance, and 
standards address insider threats.

     Coordination of Efforts to Track and Counter Weapons of Mass 
                              Destruction

    The committee remains concerned about the threats posed by 
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to the safety and security of 
the United States. Efforts to track and counter WMDs exist 
within a significant number of Federal agencies. The committee 
recognizes that counter-WMD missions outside of U.S. borders 
reside within the purview of the Department of Defense. However 
within U.S. borders, these missions fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    The committee notes that as outlined in the 2014 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the combating WMD strategy of the 
Department of Defense is to eliminate WMD threats prior to 
entering the United States; however, the committee recognizes 
that this may not always be possible. The committee is 
concerned about the eventuality wherein a WMD device crosses 
these jurisdictional boundaries, in particular, in regards to 
the coordination efforts between the Department of Defense and 
local, state, and Federal authorities. The committee believes 
that in the case of such an occurrence, the cooperation between 
the Department of Defense and other Government agencies should 
be absolute in order to guarantee the elimination of WMD 
threats. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 
September 1, 2014, on the coordination efforts between the 
Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and local, 
state, and Federal authorities for tracking and combating 
weapons of mass destruction entering the United States. The 
briefing should include details on the authority structures in 
place within the Department of Defense to facilitate the 
coordination efforts, as well as examples of how these 
structures would operate in a realistic threat scenario.

                   Cross-Service Wargaming Capability

    The committee recognizes that the information and insights 
gained from wargaming are uniquely valuable for investigating 
processes, organizing ideas, exploring issues, explaining 
implications and identifying questions. Historically, wargames 
have been instrumental in driving doctrinal and technological 
change, such as those conducted by the Naval War College during 
the interwar period leading up to World War II, which 
contributed to advances in amphibious warfare and utilization 
of carrier aviation. The committee believes that the Department 
of Defense should continue to invest in a robust cross-service 
advanced wargaming capacity to inform Department strategy and 
doctrine in a fiscally constrained environment.

    Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action and Conventional 
                      Munitions Assistance Program

    The committee notes that the budget request contained $5.8 
million for the Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action 
(HMA) program within operation and maintenance, Defense-wide. 
Elsewhere in this Act, a related section would modify the 
reporting requirements and definitions contained in section 407 
of title 10, United States Code, regarding humanitarian 
demining assistance and stockpiled conventional munitions 
assistance. The goal of the HMA program is to reduce the 
adverse effects of land mines and other explosive remnants of 
war (ERW) on noncombatants while advancing geographic combatant 
commander theater campaign plans and national security 
objectives. The committee is aware that the Small Arms and 
Light Weapons (SALW) office within the Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency (DTRA), which has worked in conjunction with the HMA 
program, has been discontinued and will no longer be available 
to assist the Department of Defense with the removal of 
conventional weapons, and physical security and stockpile 
management of at-risk abandoned stockpiles of dangerous 
explosive ordnance, small arms and light weapons, and man-
portable air defense systems (MANPADS). The committee notes the 
excellent work that DTRA's SALW office has done throughout the 
years in support of geographic combatant commander 
requirements. The committee understands that some of the 
technical support previously provided by DTRA's SALW office may 
be provided by the Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining 
Training Center (HDTC) and may be in addition to amounts 
available under section 407 of title 10, United States Code, 
for such expenses. While the committee is supportive of this 
role for the HDTC, the committee remains concerned about a 
potential gap in providing technical assistance for the 
elimination of abandoned or at-risk stockpiles of conventional 
weapons, including MANPADS, which pose a grave threat to United 
States national security interests, particularly through Africa 
and the Middle East.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense 
Humanitarian Mine Action program to engage with international 
partners and allies when practical, including allies from the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to ensure a coordinated and 
holistic approach to achieve geographic combatant commander 
security needs. As such, the committee recommends $10.8 
million, an increase of $5.0 million, to ensure sufficient 
resources to address these concerns, for conventional weapons 
assistance including MANPADS.

              Department of Defense Installation Security

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
conducted internal and independent reviews of the security 
programs, policies, and procedures regarding security at 
military installations following the tragic shooting at the 
Washington Navy Yard. The committee notes that while these 
reviews include findings and recommendations related to the 
physical access control process, physical security 
infrastructure capabilities, and force protection, the 
Secretary of Defense's memorandum dated March 18, 2014, only 
approved the implementation of four recommendations, 
specifically to ``implement continued evaluation,'' ``establish 
a DOD [Department of Defense] Insider Threat Management 
Analysis Center,'' ``centralize authority, accountability, and 
programmatic integration under a single Principal Staff 
Assistant,'' and ``resource and expedite deployment of the 
Identity Management Enterprise Services Architecture.''
    While the committee believes these are important steps to 
improve the security of military installations, the committee 
is concerned that not enough emphasis has been placed on 
improving the programs, policies, procedures, and 
infrastructure supporting the physical security of 
installations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 
Armed Services by December 31, 2014, that addresses the 
following:
    (1) An update on the Defense Installation Access Controls 
Joint Capability Technology Demonstration, and whether an 
opportunity exists to leverage commercially available tools 
into its architecture;
    (2) The frequency of installation anti-terrorism plans and 
local vulnerability assessments, and the process for mitigating 
or accepting identified risks;
    (3) Trends or identified shortfalls in equipment, 
personnel, training, or infrastructure that directly support 
the physical security of military facilities and installations 
and have been validated by Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability 
Assessments;
    (4) Any changes that may be necessary to the physical 
security and anti-terrorism/force protection policies and 
procedures for vehicles and personnel entering military 
installations and facilities; and
    (5) Any authority gaps that may require legislation to 
strengthen the physical security of military installations and 
facilities.

                        Economic Warfare Policy

    The committee continues to be concerned by the possibility 
of adversaries utilizing economic warfare as a means to 
undermine U.S. military advantages. As noted in the committee 
report (H. Rept 112-78) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, ``[t]he committee is 
concerned that our adversaries understand this dependency, and 
are developing means to attack our military strength by 
attacking our economy.''
    In making those observations, the committee noted the 
findings of a 2009 report from the Irregular Warfare Support 
Program titled ``Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses,'' which 
offered some plausible scenarios about how economic warfare 
might be used against the United States. That report also made 
a number of recommendations which have yet to be given serious 
attention by the Department of Defense or the national security 
establishment, including:
    (1) Recognize that protecting the American economy and 
industrial capability is a top defense priority that should be 
properly funded and supported;
    (2) Thoroughly research the hypothesis of economic warfare 
described from an economic defense perspective; and
    (3) Create a specialized threat finance unit to develop and 
implement appropriate countermeasures to emerging economic 
warfare threats.
    Since that report was released, the committee has become 
increasingly aware of the potentialities that cyber-enabled 
technologies add to these economic and financial threats. For 
example, the large-scale theft of intellectual property in 
sectors of strategic importance to the United States poses a 
direct challenge to U.S. technological superiority, but also a 
long-term economic pressure as we are forced to develop 
countermeasures against our own stolen defense technologies and 
potentially lose market advantage in some non-military 
technology sectors. The presence of large swaths of the 
financial sector without an adequate monitoring framework that 
could be exploited by terrorist or nation-state, such as dark 
trading pools, credit default swaps, sovereign wealth funds, 
naked short selling, or algorithmic trading, may be a 
significant blind spot for the United States.
    Given the pervasive nature of these threats, and the 
apparent lack of clear policy guidance or organization to 
address these issues, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to provide a report to the Committee on Armed Services 
of the House of Representatives by August 1, 2015, on the 
Department's assessment of these activities. The report should 
include:
    (1) Articulation of what sorts of activities amount to 
economic warfare upon the United States;
    (2) Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the 
Department of Defense in providing indications and warning of, 
or protection against, acts of economic warfare;
    (3) The current status of authorities and command structure 
related to economic warfare; and
    (4) Recommendations for improving the Department's 
capabilities, authorities, or command structure, as well as 
improving its coordination and support for interagency partners 
in dealing with economic warfare threats.

                       Force Structure Assessment

    The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy 
conducted a Force Structure Assessment in 2012 that determined 
the proposed composition of Navy surface and subsurface 
vessels. This latest Force Structure Assessment determined that 
an overall Navy fleet of 306 ships would be necessary to 
support the overall defense strategy. Since the release of the 
2012 Force Structure Assessment, the Secretary of Defense 
released the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review which determined, 
in part, the requirement for 11 aircraft carriers and 92 large 
surface combatants. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to update the most recent Force Structure 
Assessment and to submit it to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2015.

                  Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account

    The General Accounting Office (now the Government 
Accountability Office, or GAO) noted in a 1986 report (NSIAD-
86-173) that the purpose of the Foreign Currency Fluctuation, 
Defense (FCF,D) account is to provide a mechanism for 
stabilizing the portion of operation and maintenance (O&M) and 
Military Personnel funding used for purchasing foreign goods 
and services. The FCF,D provides funds to O&M when foreign 
exchange rates are unfavorable (when losses occur) and receives 
funds from O&M when the rates are favorable (when gains occur). 
This ensures, as GAO stated, that ``any given O&M appropriation 
for the purchase of foreign goods and services will purchase 
the budgeted amount of goods and services, regardless of the 
gains and losses of the dollar caused by currency 
fluctuations.'' Based on the rationale for the genesis of the 
FCF,D account, the committee believes that when foreign 
currency rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the 
current balance of funds in the FCF,D account should be 
considered.
    When the FCF,D account has a balance close to or at the cap 
of $970.0 million, the committee believes the budgeted rates 
should be adjusted to generate losses within the account, 
thereby drawing down the FCF,D account balance. This would 
reduce the O&M budget requirement for foreign goods and 
services, allowing excess funds to be allocated to other 
readiness programs without changing the budget topline. 
However, as the FCF,D account realizes a net gain, these gains 
remain in O&M and are used for purposes not originally 
requested in the annual budget submission to Congress. Without 
visibility on these transactions through a reprogramming 
request, the committee cannot determine whether funds remaining 
in the FCF,D account are being used to reduce current readiness 
shortfalls. The committee notes that based on current foreign 
currency rates for fiscal year 2014, GAO estimates that the O&M 
accounts will realize a net gain of $154.7 million through the 
FCF,D, and the Military Personnel accounts will realize a net 
gain of $197.3 million.
    The committee understands the difference between foreign 
currency and unobligated balances. Unobligated balances from 
O&M and Military Personnel appropriations that have expired for 
less than 2 years can be moved into the account to re-establish 
the FCF,D balance. The committee notes that from November 2012 
to November 2013, unobligated balances for fiscal year 2012 O&M 
funding increased by more than $860.0 million. These funds, if 
left unobligated, should be transferred to the FCF,D account, 
and future foreign currency rates adjusted to reduce the 
balance and increase funding to readiness.
    The committee recommends the Department of Defense take 
into consideration the current balance within the FCF,D account 
when determining foreign currency levels in upcoming budget 
submissions. Accordingly, the committee recommends both a 
reduction in the O&M budget for fiscal year 2015 as shown in 
section 4301 of this Act and a reduction in the Military 
Personnel budget for fiscal year 2015 as shown in section 4401 
of this Act, and realigns those funds to support higher 
priority defense requirements throughout the Department.

           Information Management Systems for Response Forces

    The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau 
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) 
currently field a system called the CST Information Management 
System, to provide a common operating picture, promote 
information-sharing and real-time collaboration in an emergency 
situation, and support the CST mission of assisting and 
advising first responders and facilitating communications with 
other Federal resources. The committee is also aware that in 
the National Guard Chemical, Biological, Radiological and 
Nuclear (CBRN) Response Enterprise, there are also other 
capabilities such as the Unified Command Suite and the Joint 
Incident Command Suite. Because each of these tools support 
different echelons of command with different but related 
capabilities, it is vital that there be a comprehensive 
strategy for how to rationalize the current suite of tools, and 
move forward with a common, interoperable, enterprise 
information management solution.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
by January 15, 2015, on a comprehensive strategy for developing 
and fielding an information management architecture for the 
Department's CBRN Response Enterprise. This strategy should 
define the information architecture needs for the CBRN Response 
Enterprise as well as its plans to achieve enterprise-wide data 
interoperability for all operating elements within the Response 
Enterprise.

Inspector General's Report on Over-Classification of National Security 
                              Information

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees not later than 
March 1, 2015, on the status and implementation of the 
recommendations found in the Department of Defense Office of 
the Inspector General's report, ``DOD Evaluation of Over-
Classification of National Security Information'' (DODIG-2013-
142). The Secretary's report should include specific actions 
taken to implement the recommendations contained in the report 
and timeframes for implementing the remaining recommendations.

                          Internet Governance

    The committee is aware of a recent proposal by the 
Department of Commerce to start the process of transferring the 
remaining Department of Commerce-managed Internet Assigned 
Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global multi-
stakeholder community. The committee is also aware that such a 
transition is supported by the Administration, many in 
industry, and the international community.
    The committee urges caution in such discussions to 
understand the full ramifications of any transition of 
responsibility, since the United States has played an important 
role in overseeing the stability of the Internet. As noted in 
recent testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
House of Representatives, ``Any pledge, commitment, or oath 
made by the current ICANN [Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers] leadership is not binding unless there is 
some accountability mechanism in place to back up that promise. 
Until now, the United States has served that role. If the U.S. 
Government is no longer providing that stability, an 
alternative mechanism is needed to ensure that ICANN is held 
accountable to the public interest.'' Additionally, as this 
testimony points out, ``U.S. oversight has served as a 
deterrent to stakeholders, including certain foreign countries, 
who might otherwise choose to interfere with ICANN's operations 
or manipulate the Domain Name Servers for political purposes. 
For example, a country may want to censor a top-level domain 
name or have ICANN impose certain restrictions on domain name 
registries or registrars.''
    Because of the Department of Defense's equities in a secure 
and transparent Internet governance system, the committee 
believes it is important to ensure that any new Internet 
governance construct includes protections for the legacy .mil 
domains and maintains the associated Internet protocol numbers. 
Furthermore, the committee believes that any negotiations that 
occur should include verifiable measures for maintaining a 
separation between the policymaking and technical operation of 
root-zone management functions and that such protections should 
be a red line in interagency discussions and U.S. Government 
positions.

     Inventory of Counter Threat Finance Programs and Capabilities

    The committee recognizes that illicit financial networks 
are critical enablers to destabilizing networks and 
transnational criminal organizations, including terrorist, 
narco-traffickers, human smugglers, proliferators and actors 
seeking to avoid sanctions. The Department of Defense invested 
heavily in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan to create counter threat finance capabilities to 
detect and combat such illicit activity. With the draw-down in 
Afghanistan and the pivot to Asia, the committee is concerned 
that the Department might begin to divest itself of such 
counter threat finance capabilities in favor of traditional 
military capabilities. However, the committee believes such 
capabilities will continue to be of value to combat threats to 
our national security, including state actors avoiding 
sanctions or maintain black market economic activities. The 
committee also believes such capabilities can be useful in 
supporting surveillance and indications and warning for 
national economic threats, such as attempts to perpetrate 
economic warfare or sabotage. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by February 15, 2015, on an inventory and 
sustainment plan for Department of Defense counter-threat 
finance programs and capabilities.

                    Military Auxiliary Radio System

    The committee continues to support the Military Auxiliary 
Radio System (MARS), a Department of Defense-sponsored 
auxiliary organization of volunteer amateur radio operators who 
provide contingency communications support to the Department of 
Defense and U.S. Government operations. In addition to 
providing an important back-up to conventional communications 
that is potentially vulnerable to disruption or degradation, 
MARS can play a vital role in helping to ensure continuity of 
Government and continuity of operations in the event of a 
natural or man-made disaster. Given these advantages of MARS, 
the committee is concerned by the Department's lack of action 
in fully utilizing this capability. In the committee report (H. 
Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee encouraged the 
Department to clarify and maintain policy oversight of MARS 
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and to update 
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4650.02 entitled 
``Mars Auxiliary Radio System (MARS)'' with respect to the 
disestablishment of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Networks and Information Integration. The committee 
notes, however, that these actions have not yet occurred.
    The committee is aware of efforts to revise and update DODI 
4650.02, which establishes policy, procedures, and 
responsibilities for MARS. However, the revision is not yet 
complete. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure that any rewrite of the DODI 4650.02 
effectively integrates MARS into the Department of Defense's 
emergency communications plan; consolidates MARS operations 
through appointment of an individual MARS manager to ensure 
standardization of operating policies and procedures among the 
three MARS branches within the Army, Air Force, and Navy-Marine 
Corps; and directs the service secretaries and geographic 
combatant commanders to integrate MARS more fully into their 
operational planning and activities. In addition, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the Committee on 
Armed Services of the House of Representatives by August 30, 
2014, on the status of the revision of DODI 4650.02.

            Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies

    The committee notes the Defense Science Board (DSB) 
released a report in January 2014 titled, ``Assessment of 
Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies.'' The Board 
took a comprehensive approach to evaluating the current U.S. 
Government framework for monitoring nuclear proliferation. It 
provided recommendations to improve existing tools and 
capabilities, and identified new approaches to traditional 
monitoring means. The committee notes the report's conclusion 
that ``monitoring for proliferation should be a top national 
security objective, but one for which the nation is not yet 
organized or fully equipped to address.''
    The DSB report included recommendations for the Department 
of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of State, 
the Department of Homeland Security, the Director of National 
Intelligence, and the National Security Council. The report 
identified the need for a common picture of the growing nuclear 
proliferation threat. The DSB report recommended addressing the 
threat through coordinated funding and authorities; improving 
the U.S. Government tools to monitor, detect and assess the 
problem; and improving the national testing capability by 
allowing U.S. Government agencies to experiment and adopt best 
practices and technologies.
    The committee recognizes the importance and benefits of 
implementing the DSB report recommendations, including but not 
limited to addressing the lack of coordinated funding and 
authorities across all the agencies. The committee believes the 
integration and alignment of funding, authorities, and efforts 
is key to improving monitoring and detection capabilities 
within a comprehensive national framework. The committee is 
encouraged that the Administration has begun to address the DSB 
recommendations and understands that the Administration is 
conducting an assessment of progress made thus far and 
remaining gaps to inform the fiscal year 2016 budget request. 
The committee expects both the Department of Defense and the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to keep the committee 
informed of each agency's respective progress in the 
aforementioned areas to ensure that sufficient focus and 
investments are made to improve monitoring and verification 
tools, capabilities, and approaches to address future 
proliferation threats.

      Personnel Protection Equipment Budget Justification Material

    Section 141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) directed the Secretary of 
Defense to submit with the annual budget request, a 
consolidated budget display that describes and justifies all 
programs and activities in the appropriations accounts for 
operation and maintenance as well as research, development, 
test, and evaluation that are associated with the development 
and procurement of personnel protective equipment. The 
committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense has failed 
to comply with this requirement.
    The committee remains concerned that after 12 years of war 
and billions of dollars spent to develop, produce, and field 
the best available individual personnel protection equipment, 
such as body armor and helmets, the Department of Defense 
should not lose momentum in its search for better protection at 
lower weight and lower cost for individual soldiers, marines, 
airmen, and sailors. The committee continues to believe that 
one of the important lessons of Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom is that research, development, and 
acquisition (RDA) of improved ballistic protection for military 
personnel must anticipate, not react, to likely threats. In 
this regard, the committee remains determined to have 
sufficient visibility to allow for comprehensive oversight of 
the Department's RDA efforts as reflected in the annual budget 
request accompanied by spending estimates projected over the 
subsequent 5-year time frame or Future Years Defense Program.

               Phased Modernization of Certain Navy Ships

    In March 2014, the Navy proposed to reduce its operational 
force structure of Ticonderoga-class cruisers and amphibious 
dock landing ships (LSD). The Navy plans to take 14 ships out 
of their normal deployment rotations and place them in long-
term phased modernization and maintenance to extend the 
expected service life of the ships. According to the Navy, this 
plan will allow it to retain the 11 cruisers and 3 amphibious 
ships through the 2030s and into the 2040s.
    The committee is concerned about the Navy's plan to reduce 
its battle force structure by 14 ships, especially in light of 
shortfalls in the force structure necessary to meet the 
requirements of the National Military Strategy. Additionally, 
the committee notes that while the Navy places Military Sealift 
Command ships in reduced operating status, or ROS, on a regular 
basis, surface combatant and amphibious ships are more complex 
and their crews need more training before they can be certified 
as being ready for deployment and major combat operations. 
Further, the Navy states it has not reactivated any surface 
combatant ships from long-term protective storage since the 
1980s.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2015, on the extent to which the Navy 
has identified:
    (1) The potential costs and cost savings associated with 
the Navy's phased modernization plan for the 11 cruisers and 3 
LSDs;
    (2) The operational benefits and risks associated with this 
long-term plan; and
    (3) The costs, savings, benefits, and risks of any 
alternate plans that were considered before putting forth the 
Navy's current plan.

     Recognizing the Importance of Professional Military Education 
          Concerning Nuclear Deterrence Operations and Policy

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee stated its views on the importance of nuclear 
deterrence education in the U.S. armed services. The committee 
referenced the 2008 Schlesinger report on Nuclear Weapons 
Management, specifically, the phase-two report findings that 
included several recommendations, including the following 
recommendation concerning professional military education of 
military officers:
    ``The Secretary of Defense should direct a comprehensive 
review of the curricula of all academies, service schools, and 
senior-level professional military education institutions and 
provide recommendations for strengthening the understanding of 
deterrence theory, strategy and policy on the part of military 
leaders through revised or new courses, research, and analysis. 
. . .''
    In January 2014, the Secretary of Defense issued a 
memorandum aimed at addressing multiple personnel failures in 
both training and doctrine that jeopardized the nuclear 
deterrence mission, including widespread cheating on tests and 
other gross negligence on the part of nuclear officers. The 
committee is encouraged by the Secretary's announcement of 
several proactive measures to begin addressing personnel 
failures within the nuclear enterprise and looks forward to 
receiving the Secretary's recommendations following an 
independent review.
    In light of the Schlesinger report from 2008, which 
highlights shortcomings of nuclear deterrence education in the 
armed services, as well as the Secretary's memo from January 
2014, which acknowledges operational and training deficiencies 
among our nuclear officers, the committee recognizes the urgent 
need for corrective actions. Absent a complete sea-change 
within the armed services on the importance of nuclear 
deterrence, embarrassing performance mistakes will continue to 
occur. Therefore, the committee believes the Secretary should 
take appropriate steps to refocus the military member education 
to ensure it is adequately covering, across-the-board, the 
essentials of nuclear deterrence policy and operations 
(including such concepts as strategic stability and escalation 
control), including at the National Defense University, the 
military senior service colleges, and the CAPSTONE General and 
Flag Officer Course.

           Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas

    The committee notes that the Air Force has completed the 
report ``Reconstituting Air Force Weapons Storage Areas'' as 
requested in the committee report (S. Rept. 113-44) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014. In its report, the Air Force acknowledged that it 
currently does not have a funded project to reconstitute a 
second Weapons Storage Area (WSA) for Air-Launched Cruise 
Missiles (ALCMs). Additionally, the report states that the Air 
Force's WSA modernization plan, the WSA Recapitalization 
Corporate Initiative, is in the preliminary stages, and 
indicates that it should be finalized in time to be programmed 
in fiscal year 2016.
    The committee is disappointed that the report did not 
include an analysis of the requirements and costs of 
reconstituting a second nuclear WSA capability for ALCMs and 
the potential benefits or savings of shortening the 
recapitalization timeframe as requested in S. Rept. 113-44. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 
to include the following information in the finalized plan for 
the WSA Recapitalization Corporate Initiative:
    (1) A business-case analysis of the requirements and costs 
for reconstituting a second WSA for ALCMs;
    (2) An analysis of potential cost-savings and benefits 
achieved through a shortened recapitalization timeframe;
    (3) An analysis of potential cost-saving and benefits of 
advances in physical and security surveillance technologies; 
and
    (4) A validation of requirements.

    Report on National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 
                            Recommendations

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239) established the National Commission on the 
Structure of the Air Force to evaluate the Total Force force 
structure of the Active, Guard, and Reserve Components of the 
Department of the Air Force.
    The committee is grateful for the time, effort, dedication, 
and expertise of all the commissioners and their staff that was 
applied to the development of the commission's report, despite 
the burdensome and arcane interpretation and application of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) to the 
commission's deliberations. The committee thanks the 
commissioners and staff for their many years of distinguished 
service in key leadership positions of the national security 
apparatus.
    The commission was charged with reviewing six distinct 
areas of the Air Force Total Force: (1) current and anticipated 
requirements of combatant commanders; (2) personnel and mission 
balance between all components of the Total Force; (3) capacity 
and capability of the Total Force for addressing Homeland 
Defense and Disaster Assistance requirements; (4) regular Air 
Force ability to provide capability and capacity to the Reserve 
Components; (5) operational tempo of Total Force components; 
and (6) the affordability, efficiency, effectiveness, 
capability, and readiness of the Total Force enterprise to meet 
national security requirements.
    The commission derived 42 distinct recommendations for the 
President, Congress, and the Department of Defense to consider. 
The committee notes that during House-Senate conference 
deliberations on Public Law 112-239, it was acknowledged that 
the Commission's report would not likely inform the President's 
budget submission for fiscal year 2015 because of Department of 
Defense budget process timelines, the date for submission of 
the commission's report, and late enactment of Public Law 112-
239, which established the commission. The conferees expected 
the report to be used to inform the Department's fiscal year 
2016 budget submission to the Congress in calendar year 2015.
    Air Force leadership testimony this year and recent 
discussions and briefings with Air Force officials indicate 
that Department of Defense officials are evaluating the 
commission's 42 recommendations to determine whether or not 
they could be viably institutionalized into the Air Force's 
Total Force enterprise. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Chief of 
the National Guard Bureau, to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees not later than February 2, 
2015, that includes the following:
    (1) Assesses all 42 recommendations of the commission's 
report;
    (2) Establishes an official regular Air Force, Air Force 
Reserve, and National Guard Bureau position on each 
recommendation;
    (3) Articulates which of the 42 recommendations are 
incorporated into the President's fiscal year 2016 budget 
request and fiscal year 2016 Future Years Defense Program for 
the Department of Defense;
    (4) Describes the method, measures of effectiveness, and 
metrics established for evaluating each recommendation 
incorporated into the budget request;
    (5) Articulates the interim or final disposition of each 
recommendation, and associated rationale, that is not 
integrated into the fiscal year 2016 budget request;
    (6) Includes dissenting views or opinions of any Air Force 
Total Force component leadership associated with the evaluation 
and disposition of any recommendation of the Commission's 
report; and
    (7) Any additional information that the Secretary of the 
Air Force or the Chief of the National Guard Bureau desire to 
include in the report.

Review of Military Standard to Protect Systems Against Electromagnetic 
                                 Pulse

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
maintains a military standard for protection of ground-based 
systems and facilities performing critical and time-urgent 
command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence 
missions from high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP). This 
military standard, known as MIL-STD 800-125-1 and -2, details 
the performance, acceptance test, and verification test 
requirements for identified systems, as well as HEMP-unique 
acceptance and verification test techniques.
    The committee is concerned that in the nearly 16 years 
since this standard was last updated, technology may have 
progressed in ways that have out-paced the ability of the 
standard to ensure protection of designated systems. For 
example, on the offensive side, the capability exists now to 
buy commercial-off-the-shelf, non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse 
(EMP) generators to provide EMP effects without the need for 
nuclear devices. On the defensive side, the higher reliance on 
commercial information technology hardware, and the 
interconnection of such systems, results in a more complex 
interaction between specific systems that must be characterized 
to understand the propagation of EMP effects.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a review of MIL-STD 800-125-1 and -2 to determine if 
the standards are in need of updating based on the current and 
future projected threats, and whether the Department needs to 
revise the frequency for revisiting testing against these 
standards to ensure changes or updates to systems and 
facilities have not opened up new vulnerabilities. 
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to provide a 
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
Representatives by June 1, 2015, on the results of this review.

   Security Risks Related to Foreign Investment in the United States

    The committee is concerned that gaps may exist within the 
current legislative and regulatory authorities for assessing 
the potential security impact of certain real property 
transactions involving the Federal Government and foreign-
controlled entities within the United States. As a result of 
some recent transactions, entities controlled by foreign 
interests have acquired access to onshore and offshore 
properties within proximity of Department of Defense 
facilities, ranges, and sensitive operating areas.
    The committee is concerned that such access and the 
proximities of associated properties could combine to 
negatively affect military readiness and national security. The 
committee notes that other government agencies are not required 
to coordinate with the Department of Defense to assess the 
potential effects of selling or leasing Federal property to 
foreign-controlled entities seeking to operate in the vicinity 
of military operating areas or installations. The committee 
also notes that the current processes that examine foreign 
investment in the United States do not cover all categories of 
transactions or projects having the potential to adversely 
affect Department of Defense capabilities and technologies, to 
include the possible exposure of tactics, techniques, and 
procedures. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with other relevant Federal 
departments and agencies as appropriate, to conduct an 
assessment of the current statutory and regulatory framework 
governing real property transactions involving the Federal 
Government and foreign-controlled entities within the United 
States as they relate to military readiness and national 
security. The review should address:
    (1) The processes by which the Department of Defense and 
the military services assess national security risks posed by 
foreign investments in Federal properties or facilities within 
proximity of Department of Defense operating areas or 
installations;
    (2) Actions that may be taken by the Department of Defense 
to mitigate such risks;
    (3) The manner in which the Department of Defense 
coordinates efforts with other Federal agencies to monitor 
proposed real property transactions involving the Federal 
Government and foreign-controlled entities within the United 
States; and
    (4) Procedures by which the Secretary of Defense could 
communicate concerns to other Federal departments and agencies 
regarding a proposed real property transaction with a foreign-
controlled entity due to proximity to Department of Defense 
facilities, ranges, or operating areas.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees not later than 
January 5, 2015, on the findings of the review and on any 
recommendations that the Secretary may have for improving the 
current statutory and regulatory framework for monitoring real 
property transactions involving the Federal Government and 
foreign-controlled entities within the United States for 
possible national security implications. Within 90 days after 
the date of submission, the Comptroller General of the United 
States should conduct a sufficiency review of the report 
submitted by the Secretary and report the results of that 
review to the congressional defense committees.

                      Spectrum Operations Centers

    The committee is aware that U.S. Strategic Command operates 
the Joint Electronic Warfare Center (JEWC) at Lackland Air 
Force Base, Texas. An important aspect of the JEWC is its role 
in connecting electronic warfare (EW) resources to the 
warfighter, and the committee believes that the JEWC provides 
critical operational EW support to the combatant commands, 
including combat operations support, opposing force EW during 
operational training exercises, Joint and North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization EW reprogramming, joint capabilities technology 
demonstration support and modeling analysis and simulation.
    The committee believes that the capabilities of the JEWC 
could be enhanced by having connections with sister 
organizations within each of the military services to act as 
spectrum coordination centers that would coordinate service-
specific resources and needs into the planning and operations 
of the individual service training, exercises, and operations. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
by June 1, 2015, that describes the use case for such spectrum 
operations centers, as well as a business-case analysis for 
designating or developing organizations to act in such a role. 
The briefing should examine the relative costs and benefits of 
leveraging existing organizations, as well as how such an 
organization could support full-scope electromagnetic 
operations, including EW, spectrum management, and cyberspace 
operations.

           Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination

    The committee is aware that as a result of direction 
received in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, U.S. Strategic 
Command (STRATCOM) established the Standing Joint Force 
Headquarters for Elimination (SJFHQ-E) in 2012 with the purpose 
of planning, training for, and executing command and control 
functions during weapons of mass destruction (WMD) elimination 
missions. However, the committee believes that the planning and 
training mission of the SJFHQ-E appears to have significant 
overlap with the STRATCOM Center for Combating WMD (SCC-WMD), 
which performs a similar function for the larger mission space 
of combating WMD. The committee is also aware that prior to the 
formation of the SJFHQ-E, the command and control functions for 
elimination missions were performed through the establishment 
of a Joint Task Force for Elimination (JTF-E), which was only 
established if and when it was deemed necessary based on the 
scope of the elimination mission. In addition, the committee 
notes that in its formation, the SJFHQ-E assumed the tasks, 
missions, and operations of the Joint Elimination Coordination 
Element (JECE) which previously functioned as the core of any 
JTF-E upon its formation.
    The committee believes that combating and eliminating WMD 
is of the utmost importance for national security. However, the 
committee also believes that in the current austere fiscal 
climate, the additional cost and bureaucracy associated with a 
standing headquarters must provide necessary, differentiable 
capability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 
September 30, 2014, on the added benefit of the SJFHQ-E. The 
briefing should discuss unique value added by the formation of 
a standing headquarters, and compare the current capabilities 
and associated costs of the SJFHQ-E with those capabilities 
that existed previously among the SCC-WMD and the existing 
JECE.

  Transfer of Coast Guard HC-130H Aircraft to the Air Force for U.S. 
                 Forest Service Equipment Modifications

    Section 1098 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) addressed the transfer of 
Department of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard aircraft to other 
U.S. Government departments for wildfire suppression and other 
purposes.
    The committee notes that discussions among the Department 
of the Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of the Army, and 
the U.S. Forest Service have been extremely collaborative and 
productive as they relate to the complexity of transferring 
aircraft to and between each of the organizations. The 
committee was informed through briefings with officials from 
these agencies that there was ambiguity associated with the 
word ``transfer'' in section 1098(a) related to the exchange of 
aircraft between the U.S. Coast Guard and the Air Force. 
According to the General Counsel of the Air Force, the word 
``transfer'' in section 1098(a) would require the U.S. Coast 
Guard to convey title, engineering services, and technical 
authority of the HC-130H to the Air Force, which the committee 
understands is a cumbersome and paperwork-intensive process to 
perform for the short period of time that the Air Force would 
possess the aircraft for modifications and depot-level 
maintenance prescribed in section 1098(a). Furthermore, it was 
explained to the committee that the Air Force performs depot-
level maintenance and modifications of HC-130H aircraft on 
behalf of the Coast Guard without having to convey title, 
engineering services, and technical authority officially to the 
Air Force. Lastly, and most concerning to the committee, is 
that if the U.S. Coast Guard had to officially convey title, 
engineering services, and technical authority to the Air Force 
using the strict interpretation of the word ``transfer,'' these 
actions would significantly delay the Air Force from performing 
the required depot-level maintenance and firefighting 
modifications required by section 1098(a), and thus delay 
providing much needed firefighting capacity improvements to the 
U.S. Forest Service. The committee did not intend the 
articulated interpretation of the word ``transfer'' to impede 
implementation of section 1098(a) for exchange of aircraft 
between the U.S. Coast Guard and the Air Force.
    Therefore, the committee supports the current execution 
plan of the Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Forest 
Service as briefed to the committee in February 2014 for 
modifying and providing firefighting capable HC-130H aircraft 
to the U.S. Forest Service in the most expeditious manner. The 
committee also expects the Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard to 
interpret the word ``transfer'' in section 1098(a) broadly as 
to mean not conveying title, engineering services, and 
technical authority of HC-130H aircraft from the U.S. Coast 
Guard to the Air Force in execution and compliance with section 
1098(a).

U.S. Transportation Command Report on Operational and Tactical Control 
        of All Department of Defense Executive Airlift Aircraft

    The committee notes that the Commander, U.S. Transportation 
Command (CUSTC) is the distribution process owner for the 
Department of Defense. However, CUSTC is responsible for the 
operational tasking, scheduling, and tactical control of only 
Department of the Air Force executive airlift and special 
airlift mission (EA/SAM) aircraft. The committee notes that 
Department of the Navy and the Department of the Army EA/SAM 
aircraft are excluded from CUSTC's control, and are not 
apportioned or allocated to meet CUSTC EA/SAM airlift 
requirements or airlift requirements of any other organization 
other than the service that owns and operates the EA/SAM 
aircraft. The committee believes this is an inefficient concept 
of operations in meeting EA/SAM airlift requirements of the 
Department of Defense.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S. 
Transportation Command to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees not later than February 2, 2015, that 
assesses the feasibility, capability, viability, effectiveness, 
and efficiency of the CUSTC assuming the role and 
responsibility of operational tasking, scheduling, and tactical 
control of all Department of Defense EA/SAM aircraft to meet 
EA/SAM airlift requirements of the Department of Defense.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters


                Section 1001--General Transfer Authority

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make 
transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year 
2015 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the 
total amount transferred under this authority to $4.0 billion. 
This section would also require prompt notification to Congress 
of each transfer made.

   Section 1002--Repeal of Limitation on Inspector General Audits of 
                      Certain Financial Statements

    This section would strike subsection (d) of section 1008 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 
(Public Law 107-107) to permit an increase in the number of 
auditors available to provide independent reviews of audit 
practices throughout the Department of Defense, thus helping 
the Department streamline its efforts to ensure proper 
financial management. To comply with the Financial Improvement 
and Audit Readiness Plan to be audit ready by 2017, the 
Department of Defense requires a sufficient number of auditors 
within the Office of the Inspector General to provide 
independent audit reviews throughout the Department.

   Section 1003--Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear 
 Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization and 
                             Naval Reactors

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to transfer up to $150.0 million to the nuclear 
weapons and naval reactor programs of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) if the amount authorized to be 
appropriated or otherwise made available for the weapons 
activities of the NNSA is less than $8.7 billion (the amount 
specified for fiscal year 2015 in the report required by 
section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)).

   Section 1004--Management of Defense Information Technology Systems

    This section would amend section 2222 of title 10, United 
States Code, to expand certification requirements, investment 
review processing and enterprise architecture requirements from 
defense business systems to all defense information technology 
systems.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities


 Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counter-drug 
               and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia

    This section would extend, by 1 year, support to the 
unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in the 
Republic of Colombia originally authorized by section 1021 of 
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), and most recently 
amended by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).

   Section 1012--Three-Year Extension of Authority of Department of 
  Defense to Provide Additional Support for Counterdrug Activities of 
                      Other Governmental Agencies

    This section would extend, by 3 years, the authority of the 
Department of Defense to provide additional support for 
counter-drug activities of other governmental agencies 
originally authorized by section 1004 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510), 
and most recently amended by section 1005 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81).

Section 1013--Submittal of Biannual Reports on Use of Funds in the Drug 
 Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide Account on the 
 Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the 
              Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate

    The section would amend section 1009(a) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) to add the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
Senate as recipients of a biannual report on the use of funds 
in the drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-
wide account.

    Section 1014--National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug 
                               Activities

    This section would amend section 112 of title 32, United 
States Code, adding the operations and activities provided by 
the National Guard Counter-drug Training Centers within the 
United States for Federal, State, and local law enforcement to 
the items for which the Secretary of Defense may provide funds 
to the governor of a state who submits to the Secretary a state 
drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan.

     Section 1015--Sense of Congress on Mexico and Central America

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Department of Defense should continue to support programs that 
combat illicit networking in the United Mexican States and 
Central America.

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards


 Section 1021--Definition of Combatant and Support Vessel for Purposes 
    of the Annual Plan and Certification Relating to Budgeting for 
                     Construction of Naval Vessels

    This section would define the term ``combatant and support 
vessel'' that is used to support Department of the Navy's 30-
year shipbuilding plan.

            Section 1022--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund

    This section would create a National Sea-Based Deterrence 
Fund to manage the obligation and expenditures for the advanced 
procurement or construction of nuclear-powered strategic 
ballistic missile submarines.

 Section 1023--Elimination of Requirement that a Qualified Aviator or 
 Naval Flight Officer Be in Command of an Inactivated Nuclear-Powered 
                Aircraft Carrier Before Decommissioning

    This section would authorize an exception to section 
5942(a) of title 10, United States Code, and allow a nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier to be commanded by a non-aviation 
officer during an inactivation period that leads to the 
permanent decommissioning and disposal of such an aircraft 
carrier.

Section 1024--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds until Commencement of 
    Planning of Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. George 
                               Washington

    This section would limit the expenditure of funds 
authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 2015 until the Secretary 
of Defense obligates funds to commence the planning and long 
lead time material procurement associated with the refueling 
and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington (CVN-73).

  Section 1025--Sense of Congress Recognizing the Anniversary of the 
                     Sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher

    This section would express the sense of Congress in 
recognition of the anniversary of the sinking of the USS 
Thresher. 

 Section 1026--Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of 
            Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships

    This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of 
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available 
for fiscal year 2015 for the retirement, inactivation, or 
storage of Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Whidbey Island-class 
amphibious ships. This section would also require the 
modernization of two Ticonderoga-class cruisers to begin in 
fiscal year 2015.

                      Subtitle D--Counterterrorism


  Section 1031--Extension of Authority to Make Rewards for Combating 
                               Terrorism

    This section would extend the authority through fiscal year 
2015 for the Secretary of Defense to offer and make rewards to 
a person providing information or nonlethal assistance to U.S. 
Government personnel or Government personnel of allied forces 
participating in a combined operation with U.S. Armed Forces 
conducted outside the United States against international 
terrorism or providing such information or assistance that is 
beneficial to force protection associated with such an 
operation.

   Section 1032--Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or Modify 
  Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred from 
           United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense 
during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
this Act and ending on December 31, 2015, to modify or 
construct any facility in the United States, its territories, 
or possessions to house any detainee transferred from U.S. 
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of 
detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective 
control of the Department of Defense.

   Section 1033--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the Transfer or 
    Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, 
                          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    This section would prohibit the use of any amounts 
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to 
the Department of Defense to be used during the period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 
on December 31, 2015, to transfer or release detainees at U.S. 
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United 
States, its territories, or possessions.

         Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations


   Section 1041--Modification of Department of Defense Authority for 
Humanitarian Demining Assistance and Stockpiled Conventional Munitions 
                          Assistance Programs

    This section would modify the reporting requirements and 
definitions contained in section 407 of title 10, United States 
Code, regarding humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled 
conventional munitions assistance. Elsewhere in this report, 
the committee expresses concern that the Department of Defense 
Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program has insufficient 
resources for HMA and conventional munitions assistance 
programs.

 Section 1042--Authority to Accept Voluntary Services of Law Students 
                 and Persons Studying to be Paralegals

    This section would amend section 1588 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military 
departments to institute unpaid internship and externship 
programs for law students.

 Section 1043--Expansion of Authority for Secretary of Defense to Use 
    the Department of Defense Reimbursement Rate for Transportation 
    Services Provided to Certain Non-Department of Defense Entities

    This section would amend section 2642 of title 10, United 
States Code, which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to use 
the Department of Defense reimbursement rate for transportation 
services provided to certain non-Department of Defense 
entities. That authority allows the Department to provide 
transportation services covered by that section at the same 
rate that the transportation element in Department of Defense 
charges Department of Defense units for similar services.

     Section 1044--Repeal of Authority Relating to Use of Military 
          Installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet Contractors

    This section would repeal section 9513 of title 10, United 
States Code, relating to the use of military installations by 
commercial air carriers doing business with the Department of 
Defense. Under this program, the Secretary of the Air Force was 
authorized for Air Force installations, or in coordination with 
the Secretary of the other military services for other than Air 
Force military installations, to enter into contracts with air 
carriers authorizing the use of designated installations as a 
weather alternative, as a technical stop not involving the 
enplaning or deplaning of passengers or cargo, or, in the case 
of an installation within the United States, for other 
commercial purposes but was never utilized.

Section 1045--Certification and Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
               Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program

    This section would prohibit U.S. Special Operations Command 
from obligating any funds available for fiscal year 2015 for 
the Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program until the 
Secretary of Defense provides a certification to the 
congressional defense committees that validates program 
requirements.

Section 1046--Submittal of Procedures and Reports Relating to Sensitive 
                          Military Operations

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of 25 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act or otherwise available for fiscal year 2015 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict until the congressional 
defense committees receive the procedures required by section 
130f(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, and the report 
required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization 
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
    Sections 1041 and 1043 of Public Law 113-66 are critical to 
the congressional defense committees' oversight of targeted 
lethal and capture operations conducted by the armed forces. 
The committee is troubled that the Department has missed the 
statutory deadlines for submitting these materials.

Section 1047--Limitation on Use of Russian-Flagged Airlift Aircraft to 
    Support the Airlift Movement Requirements of the United States 
                         Transportation Command

    This section would allow the use of Russian-flagged airlift 
aircraft to support airlift movement requirements of U.S. 
Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) only after the Commander, 
U.S. Transportation Command certifies to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
for each manifested cargo mission, that utilizing Russian-
flagged airlift aircraft is the only means available to 
TRANSCOM to execute that particular manifested cargo delivery 
mission.

Section 1048--Prohibition on Reduction of Force Structure at Lajes Air 
Force Base until Completion of Assessments by Secretary of Defense and 
                       General Accounting Office

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force 
from reducing force structure at Lajes Air Force Base, Azores, 
Portugal, until the following occur: the Secretary of Defense 
concludes a European Infrastructure Consolidation Assessment 
and briefs the congressional defense committees as to the 
results; and the Comptroller General of the United States 
reviews such assessment and conducts an independent assessment 
of possible operational capabilities of Lajes Air Force Base.

         Section 1049--Limitation on Removal of C-130 Aircraft

    This section would restrict the ability of the Secretary of 
the Air Force to remove a C-130 aircraft from a unit of the 
regular or reserve components of the Air Force that is tasked 
with the modular airborne fire fighting system mission, or from 
a unit that is formally associated with a unit that is tasked 
with such mission, until the date on which the Secretary of the 
Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees 
that such mission will not be negatively affected by the 
removal of such aircraft.

 Section 1050--Conditions on Army National Guard and Active Army Force 
          Structure Changes Pending Comptroller General Report

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense and 
Secretary of the Army, during fiscal year 2015, from reducing 
the end strength for active duty personnel of the Army below 
490,000; reducing the end strength for Selected Reserve 
personnel of the Army National Guard below 350,000; or 
transferring AH-64 attack helicopters from the Army National 
Guard to the regular Army.
    This section would also require the Comptroller General of 
the United States to assess and validate the methods the Army 
and the Department of Defense Office of Cost Assessment and 
Program Evaluation used to determine the future force structure 
of the Army, to include the appropriate mix between Active, 
Guard, and Reserve Component forces and submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2015.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee describes its larger 
concerns regarding the Army's end strength and force structure 
reductions. As a result of these concerns, the committee also 
recommends increases in funding for procurement and operation 
and maintenance accounts to accelerate the conversions of UH-
60A to UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, and additional funding to 
procure six additional UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters to address 
Army National Guard modernization shortfalls. Finally, the 
committee recommends additional funding for operation and 
maintenance readiness accounts to increase overall training 
opportunities and increase depot-level maintenance in the Army 
National Guard.

                    Subtitle F--Studies and Reports


  Section 1061--Protection of Defense Mission-Critical Infrastructure 
     from Electromagnetic Pulse and High-Powered Microwave Systems

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a certification to the congressional defense committees 
that defense mission-critical infrastructure requiring 
electromagnetic pulse protection that receives power supply 
from commercial or other non-military sources, is protected 
from the adverse effects of man-made or naturally occurring 
electromagnetic pulse and high-powered microwave weapons.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
dependent on commercial power to supply most of its needs and 
understands that such commercial power could be susceptible to 
disruption or degradation from electromagnetic pulse or high-
powered microwave events. The committee believes that much of 
the Department's defense mission-critical infrastructure 
includes planning and mitigation measures against such threats, 
but remains concerned that some critical capabilities may not 
have been included in previous reviews. The committee intends 
to determine if there is reason for further concern, but 
recognizes that remediation activities will have to be 
resourced by other organizations outside of the Department of 
Defense.

 Section 1062--Response of the Department of Defense to Compromises of 
                         Classified Information

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 
60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on actions 
taken by the Secretary regarding significant compromises of 
classified information. The report shall include a description 
of any changes to Department of Defense policies or guidance 
relating to significant compromises of classified information, 
an overview of mitigation efforts, a description of the 
resources dedicated to efforts relating to such compromises, a 
description of the Secretary's plan to continue evaluating and 
mitigating any damages, and a general description and estimate 
of the cost associated with mitigating such compromises. This 
section would also require updates to the initial report on a 
semiannual basis during calendar years 2015-18.

   Section 1063--Report and Briefing to Congress on Procurement and 
    Inspection of Armored Commercial Passenger-Carrying Vehicles to 
         Transport Civilian Employees of Department of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report and detailed briefing on the Department of 
Defense's policies and procedures for procuring and inspecting 
armored commercial passenger-carrying vehicles for transporting 
civilian employees of the Department.

 Section 1064--Study on Joint Analytic Capability of the Department of 
                                Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
commission an independent assessment of the joint analytic 
capabilities of the Department of Defense to support strategy, 
plans, and force development, and their link to resource 
decisions. This section would further require the independent 
entity selected for the conduct of the assessment to provide a 
report on the assessment to the Secretary not later than 1 year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and require the 
Secretary to transmit the report to the congressional defense 
committees not later than 90 days after the date of the 
Secretary's receipt of the report.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


            Section 1071--Technical and Clerical Amendments

    This section would make a number of technical and clerical 
amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law.

 Section 1072--Sale or Donation of Excess Personal Property for Border 
                          Security Activities

    This section would amend section 2576a of title 10, United 
States Code, ``Excess personal property: sale or donation for 
law enforcement activities'' to include border security 
activities and consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 
Security when a transfer relates to the Department of Homeland 
Security.
    The committee believes border security activities of the 
Department of Homeland Security should be considered alongside 
counterdrug and counterterrorism activities when determining 
the sale or donation of excess personal property for law 
enforcement activities.

Section 1073--Revision to Statute of Limitations for Aviation Insurance 
                                 Claims

    This section would amend section 44309 of title 49, United 
States Code, by clarifying that the claimant for civil actions 
must present a claim to the Secretary of Transportation and 
have it denied before instituting a civil action against the 
United States. Additionally, this section would clarify that an 
insurance claim must be made within two years of the loss, or 
for an insurance claim made by a person with whom the insured 
has no privity of contract, the earlier of either 60 days after 
final judgment by a court or 6 years after the date of the 
loss.

        Section 1074--Pilot Program for the Human Terrain System

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
conduct a pilot program to utilize Human Terrain System assets 
in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility to support 
Phase 0 shaping operations and to support the theater security 
cooperation plans of the geographic combatant commander.

     Section 1075--Unmanned Aircraft Systems and National Airspace

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to enter 
into a memorandum of understanding with a non-Department of 
Defense entity that is engaged in the test range program 
authorized under section 332(c) of the Federal Aviation 
Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 
112-95). Such entity would be allowed access to non-regulatory 
special use airspace if such access is used by the entity as 
part of such test range program and does not interfere with the 
activities of the Secretary or otherwise interrupt or delay 
missions or training of the Department of Defense.

  Section 1076--Sense of Congress on the Life and Achievements of Dr. 
                          James R. Schlesinger

    The section would express the sense of Congress on the life 
and achievements of Dr. James R. Schlesinger, who served the 
country as the Director, Central Intelligence, the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Secretary of Energy.

           Section 1077--Reform of Quadrennial Defense Review

    This section would amend section 118 of title 10, United 
States Code, to reform the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) by 
modifying the review and reporting elements, modifying the role 
of the National Defense Panel (NDP), and requiring a new 
Quadrennial National Security Threats and Trends Report 
(QNSTTR).
    This section would replace the QDR with a Defense Strategy 
Review (DSR), which would be required on a 4-year cycle. As 
expressed elsewhere in this report, the committee believes that 
the strategy review undertaken by the Department of Defense 
has, over time, strayed further from the intent of Congress, 
and the 2014 QDR, in particular, missed an opportunity to 
reshape the longer-term direction of the Nation's forces, their 
missions and capabilities, and needed resources.
    Therefore, the modified review and reporting elements 
contained in this section are intended to better address the 
fundamental components of a strategy over the near-, mid-, and 
far-term time horizons, and would include:
    (1) The assumed U.S. national security interests and 
strategic environment;
    (2) The prioritized missions of the Armed Forces;
    (3) The force structure, capabilities, presence, readiness, 
personnel composition and skillsets, organizational structures, 
and resources that are needed to fulfill the missions;
    (4) An assessment of gaps, shortfalls, and risks;
    (5) The assumed roles and capabilities provided by other 
U.S. Government agencies and by allies and partners; and
    (6) A sensitivity analysis to understand the relationships 
and specific tradeoffs between missions, risks, and resources.
    This section would also require two reviews of the 
strategic environment that would precede the DSR and thus 
inform it. The first review, the QNSTTR, would be required of 
the Department of Defense and consist of the Department's 
assessment of U.S. national security interests and threats and 
trends that could affect those interests in the near-, mid-, 
and far-term. The second review would be required of the NDP, 
which would be established prior to the DSR, and consist of an 
independent assessment of the strategic environment and require 
the NDP to provide recommendations on the strategic issues that 
should be examined in the DSR.
    The NDP would further be required to assess the report on 
the DSR upon its completion, thus largely maintaining the 
duties it is currently prescribed in section 118 of title 10, 
United States Code.

     Section 1078--Resubmission of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 
resubmit a report on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2014 
that was submitted, as required by section 118(d) of title 10, 
United States Code, to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than October 
1, 2014.
    In the resubmitted report, the Secretary would be required 
to include: an articulation of a defense program for the next 
20 years; an identification of the budget plan that would be 
required to provide sufficient resources to execute 
successfully the full range of missions called for in that 
national defense strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk, 
and any additional resources required to achieve such a level 
of risk; and recommendations that are not constrained to comply 
with and are fully independent of the budget submitted to 
Congress by the President pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 
United States Code. This section would limit authorized fiscal 
year 2015 funds for the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy until the report is resubmitted to Congress.
    While the committee appreciates the work that went into the 
2014 QDR, it remains concerned that these reviews have grown 
less compliant with the law and strayed further from the intent 
of Congress. The committee believes the QDR should provide a 
mechanism for setting the priorities of the Department of 
Defense, shaping the force, guiding capabilities and resources, 
and adjusting the organization to respond to changes in the 
strategic environment. In addition, it should assist Congress 
in better understanding the relationships and tradeoffs between 
missions, risks, and resources, particularly in light of 
geopolitical changes and domestic developments in the last few 
years.
    The committee believes the 2014 QDR missed a major 
opportunity to bring together key national security 
stakeholders and strategic thinkers in the Department to 
reshape the longer-term direction of the Nation's forces, their 
missions and capabilities, and needed resources. Instead, 
inconsistent with the QDR review and report requirements in 
sections 118(a) and (b) of title 10, United States Code, the 
2014 QDR focused largely on the planned force structure 
associated with the 5 year Future Years Defense Program, and it 
contained a strategy that assumes increased risk to the force, 
without specifying the resources required to execute the 
strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk.
    The committee believes that much of the information to be 
included in the re-submitted report was produced over the 
course of the review and could be provided to the committee in 
a reasonable amount of time.

Section 1079--Sense of Congress Regarding Counter-Improvised Explosive 
                                Devices

    This section would express the sense of the Congress on the 
need to remain dedicated to retaining knowledge, technological 
expertise, as well as the lessons learned from Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom regarding counter-
improvised explosive device tactics, techniques, and 
procedures.

Section 1080--Enhancing Presence and Capabilities and Readiness Posture 
                  of United States Military in Europe

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees not later than 
60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act a plan that 
identifies the capabilities and capacities required by the U.S. 
Armed Forces to counter or mitigate conventional, 
unconventional, or subversive activities of the Russian 
Federation and to meet operational plan requirements for a 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Article 5 response. This 
section would also require the Secretary to identify any 
readiness deficiencies of U.S. Armed Forces in the area of 
responsibility of U.S. European Command and recommend actions, 
resources, and timelines to correct any deficiencies.

  Section 1081--Determination and Disclosure of Transportation Costs 
 Incurred by the Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips Outside 
                           the United States

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
determine and disclose the transportation costs incurred by the 
Department of Defense for certain congressional trips outside 
the United States.

                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


    Furlough of Employees Compensated Through Working Capital Funds

    Working capital fund (WCF) employees are financed through 
sales revenue rather than direct appropriations. These unique 
civilian Federal employees work on the basis of no-year money, 
and the committee is concerned that the Department of Defense, 
when including WCF employees in the fiscal year 2013 furloughs 
of Department of Defense civilians, failed to offer sufficient 
justification of savings or an adequate legal argument to 
override statutes prohibiting management of these employees on 
any basis other than funded workload. Based on testimony of the 
military services and information gathered from facilities 
throughout the country, it is clear to the committee that the 
readiness consequences of furloughing working capital fund 
employees were grave. Furloughs at the Nation's organic 
industrial facilities cost the government money by raising 
overhead costs or causing transfer of work to more expensive 
venues, disrupted the supply chain, affected mission-critical 
work, and delayed the return of key weapon systems to the 
warfighter for training and operations. Further, these 
furloughs wreaked havoc on the private lives and morale of tens 
of thousands of Federal employees and created long-term 
consequences for the Department when electricians, engineers, 
and highly skilled depot artisans, among others, resigned, 
citing financial hardship.
    The committee finds this ineffective approach to managing 
overall shortfalls in the operation and maintenance account 
unacceptable because of the short- and long-term consequences. 
Working capital funds are required to ``break even,'' and the 
loss in productivity, workforce availability, and capability 
from unnecessary furloughs endangers the viability of the funds 
and increases the cost to the Department, customers, and the 
taxpayer by increasing overhead and rates. The committee 
believes that in the event of any type of furlough of civilian 
employees, WCF employees should be managed consistent with 
guidance issued for operations of the Department during a lapse 
in appropriations.

     Overtime Pay for Department of the Navy Employees Performing 
 Maintenance on the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Forward Deployed in Japan

    The committee notes that it has not received the report 
required by section 1105 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) 
regarding overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees who 
are maintaining the Navy's forward deployed nuclear aircraft 
carrier in Japan. The committee is aware that the Secretary of 
the Navy, due to extenuating circumstances associated with the 
closure of Building 197 at the Washington Navy Yard, did not 
deliver the required report on use and cost of the authorized 
overtime pay, and recommendations regarding extension of the 
authority, to the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) until mid-March of this year, more than 5 
months late. Late delivery by the Navy precluded OPM from 
achieving its subsequent reporting deadline of March 31, 2014. 
While agreeing in substance with extending overtime pay for 
Department of the Navy employees who are maintaining the Navy's 
forward deployed nuclear aircraft carrier in Japan, the 
committee is reluctant to do so without benefit of the report 
from OPM. The committee urges the Director of OPM to facilitate 
completion of the report as soon as possible to ensure timely 
and appropriate compensation for these civilian employees who 
are critical to the readiness of U.S. naval forces.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


     Section 1101--One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive Annual 
 Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal 
                  Civilian Employees Working Overseas

    This section would extend, for 1 year, the authority to 
waive the limitations on the amount of premium pay that may be 
paid to a Federal civilian employee who performs certain work 
in an overseas location that falls under the responsibility of 
U.S. Central Command, an overseas location that falls under the 
responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military 
operation, or in response to an emergency declared by the 
President. The payment may not exceed the annual rate of salary 
payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 3, 
United States Code.

 Section 1102--One-Year Extension of Discretionary Authority to Grant 
Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty in a 
                              Combat Zone

    This section would extend by 1 year the temporary 
discretionary authority to Federal agencies to grant 
allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those 
provided to members of the foreign service to an agency's 
civilian employees on official duty in a combat zone.

 Section 1103--Revision to List of Science and Technology Reinvention 
                              Laboratories

    This section would amend the list of Science and Technology 
Reinvention Laboratories in section 1105(a) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) to include the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 
and Social Sciences and the Space and Missile Defense Command 
Technical Center.

 Section 1104--Permanent Authority for Experimental Personnel Program 
                 for Scientific and Technical Personnel

    This section would remove the sunset date and annual 
reporting requirement for section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public 
Law 105-261).
    The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency has used this alternative personnel hiring 
authority to great effect since its inception. Furthermore, the 
committee believes that given the limited scope of this 
authority, the fact that there have been no reports of misuse 
or abuse in 15 years, and the fact that it does not authorize 
any new civilian billets for the Department of Defense, this 
authority should be made permanent. The committee believes that 
such unique hiring authorities will be important tools for the 
technical community in the Department to recruit, hire, and 
retain the Nation's top scientific and engineering talent.

Section 1105--Temporary Authorities for Certain Positions at Department 
             of Defense Research and Engineering Facilities

    This section would modify section 1107 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to provide direct hiring authority to the laboratory 
director of specified laboratories for undergraduate and 
certain graduate students enrolled in the scientific, 
technical, engineering, or mathematics programs at institutions 
of higher education on a temporary or term basis.

    Section 1106--Judicial Review of Merit Systems Protection Board 
                  Decisions Relating to Whistleblowers

    This section would extend by 3 years a pilot provision of 
the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (Public Law 101-
12) to allow whistleblowers to appeal cases from the Merit 
Systems Protection Board to any circuit court of appeals with 
jurisdiction rather than being restricted to the Federal 
circuit.

             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee's continued oversight of national security 
matters relating to foreign nations and the lessons learned 
from that oversight, as well as the demands of current events, 
has translated into four legislative focus areas in this title: 
continued military commitment to, and U.S. presence in, the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; strengthening security force 
assistance, particularly to those nations that have chosen to 
partner with the United States to combat terrorism; bolstering 
U.S., allied, and partner capabilities to deter aggression; and 
addressing emerging and evolving threats in an increasingly 
uncertain global security environment.
    First, the committee recognizes that the gains in Afghan 
security, governance, and society have come as a result of the 
immense sacrifices made by U.S. and coalition forces and the 
Afghan people. The committee continues to believe that the 
United States has a vital national security interest in 
Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda and its affiliates must be 
denied safe havens in Afghanistan and elsewhere to launch 
attacks against the United States and its allies. The 
committee, therefore, supports the post-2014 North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) mission known as Operation Resolute 
Support, and it urges the President to announce a residual U.S. 
presence in Afghanistan to demonstrate U.S. commitment, 
reassure the Afghan people, and encourage other NATO and 
coalition partners to commit to a post-2014 mission and 
presence in Afghanistan. The committee remains optimistic that 
a new Afghan president will sign the Bilateral Security 
Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, which 
would serve as a framework for a post-2014 NATO-Afghanistan 
status of forces agreement.
    As the United States transitions to Operation Resolute 
Support, the committee expects the Administration to 
communicate a clear understanding of the missions, authorities, 
plans, and resources necessary to support Operation Resolute 
Support. The committee has carefully reviewed the authorities 
for which it recommends extension such as the Commanders' 
Emergency Response Program and reimbursement of coalition 
nations for support provided to U.S. military operations. The 
committee would require a revised ``Report on Progress Toward 
Security and Stability in Afghanistan Under Operation Resolute 
Support'' to inform its understanding of the post-2014 security 
and economic environment in Afghanistan, and a plan for 
sustaining the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) through 
fiscal year 2018. Additionally, the committee continues to 
leverage important oversight tools, such as the Department of 
Defense Inspector General, to ensure Department of Defense 
funds for Afghanistan are properly managed to protect against 
waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee also recognizes the 
service performed by many Afghans in support of U.S. military 
efforts, and it would authorize additional special immigrant 
visas for Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. 
Government in Afghanistan.
    Second, the committee continues to support Department 
efforts to carry out security force assistance and military-to-
military interactions throughout the world by providing 
authorities for interactions that support U.S. national 
security interests particularly with those nations that have 
chosen to partner with the United States to combat terrorism. 
The committee would extend the Global Security Contingency Fund 
(GSCF), and provide an authority that would allow for foreign 
liaison officers to be temporarily assigned to the headquarters 
of a combatant command, component command, or subordinate 
operational command.
    The committee also would provide an authority to the 
Department of Defense relating to the acquisition of products 
and services produced in Djibouti in recognition of the 
Government of Djibouti's continued support of the U.S. base at 
Camp Lemonnier, which is critical to U.S. national security 
efforts in the region. However, the committee also believes 
that the U.S. Government must improve its whole-of-government 
engagement of strategic partners such as Djibouti.
    Third, the committee would take several steps in this Act 
aimed at bolstering U.S., allied, and partner capabilities to 
deter aggression. The committee condemns the recent aggressive 
actions undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation 
in Ukraine, which include its illegal occupation of Crimea, 
deployment of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers near the 
Ukrainian border, and its infiltration and destabilization of 
eastern Ukraine. The committee therefore would limit U.S.-
Russia military contact and cooperation and limit the use of 
funds for Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security 
Administration activities with Russia. The NATO alliance 
remains a cornerstone of international security, and the 
committee would seek to further strengthen the alliance and 
reassure U.S. allies and partners in Europe through measures 
such as requiring a comprehensive strategic framework for 
security force assistance to European and Eurasian forces and 
providing additional funds for the Warsaw Initiative Fund/
Partnership for Peace program.
    The committee also remains concerned about the continued 
nuclear and missile developments in the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea as well as the military developments in the 
People's Republic of China, including its provocative maritime 
claims. The committee conducted an Asia-Pacific oversight 
series, focusing largely on the implications of the 
Administration's rebalance to Asia on U.S. defense policy, 
posture, capabilities, and investments. Many of the Asia-
Pacific-related provisions contained in this Act reflect the 
findings and recommendations that emerged from the oversight 
series.
    Fourth, the committee maintains strong oversight of 
Department of Defense efforts to address emerging and evolving 
threats to U.S. vital national security interests around the 
world. The committee applauds the successes of the United 
States military in its global pursuit of Al Qaeda. However, the 
committee remains concerned that Al Qaeda and its violent 
extremist affiliates and associated forces are evolving and 
growing in certain geographic areas due to safe havens that 
have emerged in locations such as Libya, the Syrian Arab 
Republic, and the Republic of Iraq. The committee addresses 
these issues by extending the authority to support special 
operations to combat terrorism and by requiring the President 
to provide a report on the national security planning guidance 
to deny safe havens to Al Qaeda and its violent extremist 
affiliates. Also, the committee recognizes the additional 
requirements for U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) associated with 
``New Normal'' and therefore would require a report on the 
force posture and structure required of AFRICOM to meet the 
``New Normal'' requirements in its area of responsibility.
    The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to 
prepare and posture itself for other threats. The committee 
believes that the United States' should continue to maintain a 
robust forward presence in the region of the Arabian Gulf to 
support those allies and partners in order to deter the Islamic 
Republic of Iran. The committee further believes that any 
comprehensive deal on Iran's nuclear program should address 
past and present issues of concern with the International 
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and should require Iran to cease 
enrichment of uranium, address ballistic missile and 
conventional military systems, and stop support for 
international terrorism. Additionally, the committee believes 
that the United States should continue to put significant 
pressure on Iran's network of organizations that conduct malign 
activities in the Arabian Gulf region, and around the globe, 
even while the United States engages in negotiations with Iran 
relating to its nuclear program.
    Lastly, the committee remains deeply concerned about the 
implications of budget cuts and force reductions on the ability 
of the United States to meet the global demand for forces 
across the combatant commands. AFRICOM and U.S. Southern 
Command, in particular, lack key enabler capabilities such as 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. Although 
U.S. Pacific Command has benefitted from the Administration's 
rebalance to Asia, it is still anticipated to lack the full 
time presence of a carrier. These shortfalls not only hamper 
the combatant commanders' ability to meet their requirements, 
but they also affect the United States' ability to provide 
robust presence to deter potential adversaries and to reassure 
allies and partners and, ultimately, affect perceptions of U.S. 
commitment to these regions. While the committee has taken 
several steps in this Act to address these concerns, it 
recognizes that doing so will become increasingly difficult as 
funding becomes increasing scarce.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


 Additional Reporting on the Transfer of International Traffic in Arms 
   Regulations Controlled Missile Defense Technology to the National 
                  Aeronautics and Space Administration

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to provide a 
briefing to the congressional defense committees, the Committee 
on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate, and the 
Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the House of 
Representatives, not later than August 1, 2013, that responds 
to certain questions concerning reports of the illegal transfer 
of Missile Defense Agency (MDA) developed technology.
    The committee is troubled that the stated agencies have 
thus far been unable to respond to those questions. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Inspector General of the Department 
of Defense to investigate whether MDA technology was 
transferred to NASA other than by the Department's policies and 
procedures for the protection of classified and International 
Traffic in Arms (ITAR) controlled technology; whether 
classified technology was involved; whether it was 
retransferred beyond the control of the U.S. Government and, if 
so, whether any damage to the security of the United States 
resulted by that transfer; and who had access to that 
technology, including foreign nationals. The Inspector General 
is further directed to provide a preliminary report to the 
House Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives not later 
than November 31, 2014. In the event a final report is not 
complete by November 31, 2014, the Inspector General should 
brief the initial findings to the House Committee on Armed 
Services and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of 
the House of Representatives. The committee expects NASA to 
provide unfettered access to MDA technology and related 
documents, personnel, and any other matters requested by the 
Inspector General of the Department of Defense. The Inspector 
General should immediately report to the committees any non-
compliance or impairment with this direction.
    In the event the Inspector General finds that such 
transfer(s) did occur, the committee directs the Inspector 
General to review the Department's compliance with its transfer 
policy and procedures department-wide and to provide an interim 
report to the House Committee on Armed Services on its plan to 
undertake this review not later than November 1, 2015.

                  Aggression by the Russian Federation

    The committee notes with concern the recent actions 
undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation in 
Ukraine. The committee believes that both the overt and covert 
actions taken by the Russian military and Government to seize 
and annex Crimea, destabilize eastern Ukraine, and threaten 
further military action against the Government of Ukraine, are 
clearly meant to coerce the Government and people of Ukraine 
into adopting policies and an orientation centered on Russia 
and away from Europe and the West.
    The committee supports the military steps taken by the 
Administration to reassure North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
(NATO) allies in Europe. The deployment of additional U.S. 
troops to the territory of the easternmost NATO members, steps 
taken to increase the air policing and airborne warning 
missions, and the deployment of additional ships to the Black 
Sea are all useful and necessary steps. The committee further 
notes with approval the non-lethal military aid the 
Administration has provided to Ukraine to date. However, in 
both areas, the committee believes that more can be done and 
will likely be required in the future.
    The committee is concerned that Russia's actions in 
Ukraine, coming only a few years after similar, albeit less 
sophisticated, actions were taken against Georgia, represent 
the Russian Government's policy for dealing with neighboring 
states that do not follow its preferred orientation. Combined 
with announced increases in Russian defense spending, such a 
policy would be very concerning for Russia's neighbors, 
including former Soviet states that are now members of NATO.
    The committee encourages the Administration to consider 
additional steps that could be taken to reassure allies and 
dissuade Russia from further actions designed to coerce its 
neighbors. The committee notes that cooperation between Russia 
and the United States has benefited both countries in the past 
and that Russian economic growth in the last two decades came 
largely as a result of Russia's economic relationship with 
Europe.
    The committee also believes the Administration should 
consider further sanctions that, coupled with an effective 
information strategy, make clear to Russia's people that 
prosperity and peace are the result of cooperation with 
neighboring countries rather than threatening those neighbors. 
The committee further encourages the Commander of U.S. European 
Command (EUCOM) to consider additional exercises with European 
and NATO allies to increase readiness and military 
preparedness. Finally, the committee believes that the EUCOM 
Commander and the full Administration should continue to 
conduct engagement with and provide assistance to Ukraine. Such 
assistance could include, but not be limited to, additional 
non-lethal military assistance, cooperation on cyber defense, 
and strategic information sharing.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends two 
provisions in title 10, seven provisions in title 12, one 
provision in title 13, and two provisions in title 31 that are 
related to Russia, including expressing a sense of Congress on 
Russian aggression, requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a plan to enhance the presence, capabilities, and 
readiness posture of the U.S. military in Europe, and 
establishing limitations on fiscal year 2015 funds for 
cooperation and activities with the Russian Federation until 
Congress has received certain certifications. Elsewhere in this 
report, the committee also recommends $34.4 million, an 
increase of $10.0 million above the budget request, for the 
Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace.

  Briefings on Arms Control Inspections and Potential Inconsistencies

    Given ongoing concerns with the Russian Federation's 
compliance with its arms control obligations to the United 
States, the committee believes it is imperative that Congress 
stay well-apprised of the results of arms control inspections 
conducted by the United States in Russia. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency (DTRA) to provide, during fiscal year 2015 and the 
remainder of fiscal year 2014, semi-annual briefings to the 
House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence on U.S. arms control inspections in 
Russia and their results. The first such briefing should be 
provided by June 30, 2014, and subsequent briefings should be 
conducted semi-annually during fiscal year 2015.
    The committee further directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy to provide a briefing to the House Armed 
Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee by 
July 31, 2014, on Department of Defense information regarding 
U.S. arms control agreements with Russia and any potential 
inconsistencies, circumventions, or violations regarding 
Russia's compliance with such agreements.

                           Conflict in Syria

    The committee remains concerned about the conflict in 
Syria, which has now entered its fourth year. President Bashar 
al-Assad has waged a ruthless campaign against the Syrian 
people to include: flagrant human rights violations; 
extrajudicial killings; use of conventional weapons and weapons 
of mass destruction against civilians, including children; and 
interference with the provision of medical aid and humanitarian 
assistance.
    The human toll in this conflict continues to rise 
dramatically. To date, over 140,000 Syrians have been killed, 
including at least 10,000 children, according to United 
Nations' estimates. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) estimates that 9.3 million 
Syrians are in need of humanitarian assistance, 6.5 million 
Syrians are internally displaced, and 2.4 million Syrian 
refugees are in neighboring countries.
    The Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, in 
testimony before the committee on February 11, 2014, 
highlighted the growing regional instability in the vicinity of 
Syria, stemming from the ever-increasing violence due to the 
conflict in Syria and the refugee outflows that continue to 
spill over Syria's borders into the Republic of Turkey, the 
Lebanese Republic, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the 
Republic of Iraq, and the State of Israel. The committee notes 
the impact of the Syrian conflict on Jordan, in particular, and 
will continue to consider ways in which it can support Jordan's 
ability to maintain border security and stability, as the 
committee did in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
    The committee remains concerned about the effect of outside 
influences in Syria. The Islamic Republic of Iran has sent into 
Syria the Iranian Revolutionary Guard-Quds forces, Shia 
militias from Iraq, Hezbollah, and other advisers to maintain 
its client, the Assad regime, and in some cases, to actively 
fight the Syrian opposition on behalf of the Assad regime. The 
committee is further concerned by the growth of Al Qaeda-linked 
or Al Qaeda-inspired elements in the Syrian civil war, 
especially, although not exclusively, the Islamic State of Iraq 
and the Levant (ISIL) and the Al Nusra Front. Both of these 
groups share ideologies with Al Qaeda and have attracted many 
foreign fighters, increasing the chances that radicalized 
adherents could return to the United States, Europe, or other 
countries and conduct attacks.
    The committee supports the attempt to remove Assad's 
chemical weapons, but is disappointed by the continual delays 
and missed deadlines by the Assad regime to transfer the 
precursor chemicals. Such delays and missed deadlines sow doubt 
that the destruction of Assad's chemical precursors and 
chemical weapons-making capability will be achieved, consistent 
with the deal that was reached. The committee notes that this 
deal does not address the biological weapons program that the 
Assad regime continues to maintain.
    The committee believes the United States must act to 
protect the Nation's interests and those of U.S. allies and 
partners in the region, and should leverage all tools of 
national power to achieve such interests. The committee is 
aware that the Department of Defense and the U.S. Central 
Command continue to conduct prudent planning to support any 
Presidential policy decision to address the conflict in Syria 
or stability in the region. The committee encourages the 
Department of Defense, and the Administration more broadly, to 
continue to look at realistic options to support U.S. allies in 
the region and to help further regional stability. The 
committee also believes that the United States and U.S. allies 
in Europe and the Middle East must do more in a cooperative and 
coordinated manner to track and address the foreign fighter 
threat. Finally, the committee reserves judgment on any plan to 
train and equip select elements of the Syrian opposition until 
it understands the details of such plan or proposed authority, 
including how it fits into a broader strategy and policy. 
However, the committee does believe that such an effort merits 
prudent planning and consideration in order to understand how 
it would help bring about an end to the Syrian civil war, the 
civilian strife caused by the war, and the threat of 
international terrorism posed by some of the participants in 
that war.

 Department of Defense Arctic Collaboration with International Partners

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense plays a 
role in the U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region. The 
Department of Defense November 2013 Arctic Strategy states the 
Department's desired end-state for the Arctic is ``a secure and 
stable region where U.S. national interests are safeguarded . . 
. and nations work cooperatively to address challenges.'' The 
strategy also states that ``relationships with allies and 
partners are important enablers of cooperation in meeting 
security and defense commitments,'' and that these 
relationships ``play an important role in conflict prevention, 
and if prevention and deterrence fail, in coordinating an 
international response to security and defense challenges.'' 
The committee recognizes the Department's Arctic strategy 
places a significant focus on collaboration with partners in 
the region, including the pursuit of increased multilateral 
collaboration with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
allies and partners, to leverage the most appropriate 
capabilities to meet the Department's desired end-state. The 
committee encourages the Department to continue fostering this 
collaboration with international partners, including NATO, and 
to keep the committee informed of its efforts.

  Foreign Military Sales of U.S. Air and Missile Defense Systems and 
            Interoperability With Friendly and Allied States

    The committee believes that international cooperation in 
air and missile defense will continue to grow as the threat 
grows in sophistication and numbers, and as defense budgets for 
the U.S. and friendly and allied states continue to decline. 
Further, the committee believes that through interoperability, 
the United States and its allies can realize the benefits of 
force multiplication and economies of scale.
    Conversely, the committee is concerned that the Department 
of Defense, the Department of State, and related U.S. 
Government agencies are not appropriately postured to fully 
promote the benefits of interoperable air and missile defense 
capabilities between the United States and friendly and allied 
countries. The committee is aware that, in many cases, policies 
related to data sharing and protection of sensitive and 
classified information are unclear. The committee is aware of 
examples where undeveloped policies and incomplete processes 
related to coproduction have stymied foreign military sales of 
these capabilities. Likewise, the committee has seen examples 
in which foreign states better position their indigenous 
capabilities in tenders and competitions, when superior U.S. 
capabilities have been offered but lack the clear support of 
the U.S. Government, across the Federal Government.
    The committee believes that the multiplicity of agencies 
involved in these matters (specifically the Department of 
Defense (including the Defense Security Cooperation Agency; the 
Defense Technology Security Administration; the Missile Defense 
Agency; the military services; the Tri-Service Committee; the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and others), the 
Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and others) 
does not provide the focus and efficiency required to fully 
take advantage of the opportunities available to the United 
States by the interest of friendly and allied states in U.S. 
air and missile defense technology.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy to evaluate and provide a briefing to the 
House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2014, on the 
current structure for foreign military sales of air and missile 
defense technology to friendly and allied states, associated 
obstacles or barriers, and recommend steps to improve the 
structure to make it more nimble, responsive, and to better 
position U.S. military technology in foreign tenders and 
competitions.
    The committee further directs the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the geographic combatant 
commanders and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to 
conduct an analysis and provide a briefing to the House 
Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2015, on the 
potential, in specific examples and recommendations, for 
foreign military sales of U.S. air and missile defenses to 
friendly and allied states to enhance interoperability and data 
sharing to better share the operational burden of defending 
against regional missile threats.
    Lastly, the committee directs the Director, Defense 
Security Cooperation Agency to provide a briefing to the House 
Committee on Armed Services by November 15, 2014, on the intent 
of the United States, through the Department of Defense, to 
sell defense articles, equipment, and services related to U.S. 
air and missile defense technology under consideration and the 
potential for economies of scale.

                    Global Security Contingency Fund

    The budget request contained $30.0 million for the Global 
Security Contingency Fund (GSCF).
    The GSCF was established as a joint authority for both the 
Department of Defense and the Department of State in section 
1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012 (Public Law 112-81). Section 1207(g) of Public Law 112-81 
further required both departments to fund GSCF activities, by 
specifically requiring that the Secretary of State contribute 
not less than 20 percent of the total amount required for an 
activity, and the Secretary of Defense contribute not more than 
80 percent.
    The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request contained the Department of Defense request for $30.0 
million for GSCF, but contained no funds requested by the 
Department of State. The committee remains concerned about the 
disproportionate contribution of the Department of Defense to 
the GSCF. The committee notes section 1207(f) of Public Law 
112-81 provides transfer authority for the Department of 
Defense for up to $200.0 million and encourages the Department 
of Defense to use the transfer authority in order to fund 
future proposed programs.
    Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a decrease of 
$30.0 million, for the GSCF. Elsewhere in this Act, the 
committee includes a provision that would extend the GSCF for 1 
year and broaden the types of authorized assistance to include 
small-scale construction, and informs the Department that it 
may consider not renewing the GSCF authority after it expires 
at the end of fiscal year 2016.

                 Missile Defense Cooperation With Japan

    The committee continues to support the significant level of 
missile defense cooperation with the Government of Japan. 
Included in this cooperation is the co-development of the 
Standard Missile 3 block IIA missile interceptor. Japan is one 
of only a handful of countries with the requisite technical 
expertise and with whom the United States has the level of 
trust required to partner on the development of significant 
military technology such as a missile interceptor.
    The committee is also profoundly appreciative of the 
continuing activity to deploy a second Army Navy/Transportable 
Radar Surveillance-model 2 radar unit in Japan. When the radar 
is available later this year, it will make a significant 
difference to regional missile defense and the homeland missile 
defense of the United States. The committee is aware that these 
two deployments bind together the security of the United States 
and Japan, and do not come without additional risks to Japanese 
security. The committee believes this is a measure of the 
security alliance between the two nations.
    The committee commends the announcement of the Secretary of 
Defense on April 6, 2014, to forward deploy to Japan an 
additional two United States Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile 
Defense ships by 2017. The committee supports this decision, as 
well as Japan's decision to obtain two more Aegis ballistic 
missile defense ships for its own defense forces.
    The committee believes this cooperation is the bedrock of 
regional security and will support additional missile defense 
cooperation in the years ahead.

         Missile Defense Cooperation With the Republic of Korea

    The committee is aware that the Republic of Korea has three 
naval cruisers equipped with Aegis tracking software possessing 
some ballistic missile defense sensor capability and plans to 
increase the number of equipped warships by three. The 
committee is also aware that South Korea has not currently 
obtained sea-based ballistic missile interceptors. The 
committee is aware of discussions between the U.S. and South 
Korea to facilitate the first exports of this technology in the 
near future and is supportive of these discussions.
    The committee is also aware that South Korea is interested 
in obtaining the Standard Missile 6 interceptor, and that it is 
considering the Standard Missile 3 missile interceptor as well. 
The committee believes these could be valuable to South Korea's 
security and could further deepen bilateral defense cooperation 
between the two nations.
    The committee is also aware that South Korea has announced 
plans to implement a Korean Air and Missile Defense system to 
counter regional threats. The committee believes regional 
security and bilateral ties would be strengthened if South 
Korea obtained U.S. technology for this system, which would 
enable fully interoperable capabilities in the event of a 
threat to either country. The committee would be concerned that 
other technology sold by other countries may not possess this 
highly desirable force multiplication for South Korea's 
security and nor would strengthen the 1953 Mutual Defense 
Treaty.
    The committee continues to support South Korea's 
procurement of the Guided Enhanced Missile-Tactical interceptor 
and its evaluation of the PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) 
and the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptor.

      Monitoring of Ongoing Construction Activities in Afghanistan

    The committee is aware that there may be limitations in the 
ability of U.S. forces to access all parts of the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan to monitor ongoing Department of 
Defense construction activities after December 31, 2014. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
House of Representatives, not later than December 15, 2014, on 
plans to monitor such activities after December 31, 2014.

                National Guard State Partnership Program

    The committee reiterates its support for the National Guard 
State Partnership Program (SPP), which has focused on improving 
long-term international stability through unique cooperative 
partnerships between 53 U.S. states and territories and 74 
foreign partner countries. SPP activities support partner 
capacity building in a wide-range of areas including 
humanitarian assistance, emergency management, consequence 
management, emergency communications, disaster relief, counter-
trafficking, and counter-proliferation.
    The committees notes that section 1205 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), which authorized the SPP, required an annual report on SPP 
activities. In this annual report, the first of which is due by 
January 31, 2015, the National Guard is required to include a 
summary of expenditures to conduct SPP activities, including 
annual costs and a breakdown of such expenditures by geographic 
combatant command. The committee continues to encourage the 
National Guard to provide greater transparency and detail on 
the costs to plan, execute, and administer the SPP.

          National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking

    The committee is aware that the Administration has 
announced a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife 
Trafficking, which established guiding principles for U.S. 
efforts to stem illegal trade in wildlife, including 
strengthening domestic and global enforcement; reducing demand 
for illegally traded wildlife at home and abroad; and 
strengthening partnerships with international partners, local 
communities, non-governmental organizations, private industry, 
and others to combat illegal wildlife poaching and trade. The 
committee believes that the Department of Defense should 
support this national strategy to the extent that it is in the 
U.S. national defense interest.

             Non-Lethal Weapons for Contingency Operations

    The committee reaffirms its longstanding support for the 
accelerated development, fielding, and deployment of non-lethal 
technologies. Non-lethal systems are useful for both force 
application and force protection missions. The committee notes 
that their employment is consistent with U.S. military strategy 
and helps minimize damage to property and inadvertent civilian 
casualties in the kinds of operational contingencies, including 
irregular warfare and humanitarian crises, in which U.S. forces 
are likely to be engaged. Their use provides commanders with 
additional decision time and space before resorting to lethal 
force, helps mitigate the negative consequences of unintended 
non-combatant injuries and fatalities, and enhances the overall 
prospects of mission success.
    The committee understands that, as a result of budget 
pressures, the Department of Defense is proposing significant 
cuts to the Department's Non-Lethal Weapons program over the 
next 5 years. This includes a roughly one-third reduction in 
fiscal year 2015 for overall Department of Defense non-lethal 
investments and more than a 40 percent reduction in the Future 
Years Defense Plan compared to the previous 5-year estimate. 
The committee is also concerned that significant cuts to 
service procurements are also planned, further exacerbating 
cuts to the joint program.
    The committee believes that such reductions may have 
unintended or unforeseen impacts on contingency planning 
related to humanitarian relief, non-combatant evacuation 
operations, and peacekeeping. If current contingency plans are 
predicated on the availability of such non-lethal systems, the 
Department of Defense may be forced into relying solely on 
lethal force to deal with these emerging requirements. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 
Armed Services by February 1, 2015, on the impact of funding 
reductions for non-lethal systems on current contingency 
operations planning supporting humanitarian relief, non-
combatant evacuation operations, and peacekeeping. This 
briefing should examine current contingency planning to 
determine if the level of investment estimated across the 
Future Years Defense Program in the joint and service programs 
is sufficient to support those plans, and a possible course of 
action to mitigate any shortfall.

             North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2014 Summit

    The committee notes that the September 2014 North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Wales, the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represents an important 
opportunity for the United States and alliance members to 
discuss the future of the alliance. Historically, NATO has 
served as the cornerstone of U.S. cooperation with European 
allies and partners. As U.S. security interests remain parallel 
with those of European partners, the committee believes the 
United States should continue to consider NATO as the security 
and defense foundation of the transatlantic relationship.
    The committee believes that the Wales Summit presents an 
opportunity for the United States to reaffirm its commitment to 
the alliance in the midst of an environment of complex global 
challenges and threats, and that the United States must play a 
leadership role both in the alliance and at the Summit. The 
committee also notes the United Kingdom's key role in hosting 
and leading the Summit.
    Additionally, the committee is aware that the Wales Summit 
agenda has not yet been determined, but believes key areas of 
discussion for the alliance could include: the evolving 
security situation between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, 
and the implications for NATO; the defense and security threats 
facing alliance members, including potential aggression by 
Russia towards NATO allies; maintaining key defense 
capabilities and capacities across the alliance; NATO's 
Operation Resolute Support mission in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan beyond December 2014; and maintaining 
interoperability and combat gains from the International 
Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan.
    Lastly, the committee encourages continued engagement by 
the Department of Defense as the Summit approaches, as well as 
after the Summit.

 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Center of Excellence on Deterrence

    The committee is aware that the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) has successfully built a construct of 
centers of excellence in member states to strengthen the 
Alliance's posture by training and educating leaders from NATO 
member and partner states, develop important doctrines, improve 
interoperability, identify lessons learned, and test and 
validate important concepts for alliance security.
    The committee is aware of over 18 of these centers (with 
three more in development) concentrating on subjects ranging 
from human intelligence to cooperative cyber defense. The 
committee is also aware that there is no center devoted to 
nuclear deterrence, including extended deterrence and 
assurance, or to reducing the risk of nuclear smuggling and 
nuclear terrorism.
    The committee is aware of the robust nuclear weapons 
modernization program in a state neighboring the alliance, the 
on-going security crisis in Europe, including concerns about 
the use of nuclear weapons in escalation control in certain 
circumstances, invasion of states considered for Alliance 
membership, arms control violations that could affect the 
security of Alliance members, and the instances of nuclear 
smuggling and risk of fissile material theft or diversion in or 
near-Europe.
    Moreover, the committee is aware that it is a central tenet 
of the May 2012 NATO Deterrence and Defense Posture Review 
that, ``[n]uclear weapons are a core component of NATO's 
overall capabilities for deterrence and defense alongside 
conventional and missile defense forces . . . As long as 
nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.''
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to study the utility for NATO of a center of excellence 
focusing primarily on nuclear deterrence (including extended 
deterrence and ensuring compliance with arms control 
obligations), missile defense, and reducing the risk of nuclear 
smuggling and nuclear terrorism and submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees not later than November 1, 
2014. The study should include: a detailed examination of 
establishing a NATO Center of Excellence-Deterrence (COE-D), 
which would include a discussion of the notional concept with 
key allies and potential stakeholders (Allied Command 
Transformation, NATO Headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied 
Powers Europe, U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. European Command); 
development of a notional vision and mission statement, goals 
and objectives, and organizational chart; propose a timeline 
for establishment, initial operating capability, final 
operating capability (accreditation), and provide proposed 
budget and staffing; development of a notional curriculum; 
recommendations for physical location and necessary 
infrastructure; the manner in which the center would meet NATO 
(Allied Command Transformation) accreditation requirements; 
and, additional recommendations as appropriate based on the 
outcome of the study. The committee believes, in discussion 
with Allies, the study should identify and encourage member 
states to offer to be the host nation for the COE-D and 
equitably share the costs of establishing and operating such a 
center.

     Oversight of United States-Russian Federation Missile Defense 
                        Cooperation Discussions

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of 
State, and the Director, Missile Defense Agency to brief 
certain congressional committees on (1) missile defense 
discussions between the United States and the Russian 
Federation; (2) the use of missile defense declassification 
authority by Director, Missile Defense Agency; and (3) the 
declassification of certain missile defense information.
    The committee directs that this information provided to the 
congressional committees pursuant to H. Rpt. 113-102 be updated 
by the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director, 
Missile Defense Agency and the Secretary of State, and be 
reported to the congressional defense committees, the Committee 
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not later than 
August 1, 2014.
    Additionally, at the March 25, 2014, House Committee on 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on the 
President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for missile 
defense, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear 
and Missile Defense Policy stated, ``[w]ith regard to talks 
with Russia on transparency and cooperation, Russia's 
intervention in Ukraine in violation of international law led 
to the suspension of our military-to-military dialogues, 
including [Department of Defense] civilians, and we have 
subsequently not continued to engage Russia on the topic of 
missile defense.''
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to notify 
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than one week 
after the Department of Defense resumes any missile defense 
discussion with the Russian Federation.

   Report on Countering Violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
                             Forces Treaty

    On March 5, 2014, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy testified before the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services that, ``[w]e are concerned 
about Russian activity that appears to be inconsistent with the 
Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We've raised the 
issue with Russia. They provided an answer that was not 
satisfactory to us, and we will, we told them that the issue is 
not closed, and we will continue to raise this.'' The committee 
shares this concern regarding Russian behavior that is 
``inconsistent with'' or in violation or circumvention of the 
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
    Additionally, the Commander, U.S. European Command, and 
Supreme Allied Commander Europe, stated on April 2, 2014, that, 
``A weapon capability that violates the INF, that is introduced 
into the greater European land mass is absolutely a tool that 
will have to be dealt with. . .I would not judge how the 
alliance will choose to react, but I would say they will have 
to consider what to do about it. . .It can't go unanswered.''
    The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, in consultation with the Commander, U.S. European 
Command, the Commander, U.S. Central Command, and the 
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
of the House of Representatives not later than September 1, 
2014, detailing the following:
    (1) A list of any military capabilities (beyond those 
indicated by the September 2013 report by the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``Report on Conventional Prompt Global 
Strike Options if Exempt from the Restrictions of the 
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Between the United 
States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics'') the United States would develop or deploy to 
satisfy military requirements but for United States compliance 
with and adherence to the INF Treaty;
    (2) The capability of the Aegis Ashore systems scheduled to 
be deployed to Romania and the Republic of Poland to detect 
Russian military systems that are inconsistent with or in 
circumvention of the INF treaty, and the appropriate types of 
interceptor missiles, including interceptor missiles other than 
the Standard Missile-3, that would be capable of defending 
allies and U.S. deployed forces from such Russian military 
systems that could be deployed at such Aegis Ashore sites, as 
well as a detailed explanation of any hardware and software 
changes required to those sites in order to provide a cruise-
missile defense capability, and the costs of those changes;
    (3) The defensive capability of the Aegis Ashore system, 
currently situated on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in 
Hawaii, if redeployed to one of the following locations: Japan, 
the Baltic Region of Europe, or the South Caucuses of Europe;
    (4) Options to increase the long-term, long-duration 
deployment of U.S. Aegis destroyers and cruisers, configured 
with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system, in the North 
Sea, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, White Sea, and other locations that 
provide an enhanced defense of the United States, deployed 
forces, and allies within range of the aforementioned Russian 
military systems, and costs of those options;
    (5) Options to provide for the forward-deployment, on a 
non-temporary basis, for U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area 
Defense or PATRIOT units at potential locations in Eastern 
Europe, the South Caucuses of Europe, or in allied states in 
East Asia, and the costs of those options;
    (6) Options to increase the deployment of U.S. Dual Capable 
Aircraft in states within range of the aforementioned Russian 
military systems, and the costs of those options;
    (7) Potential locations in Eastern Europe or the South 
Caucuses of Europe, or in allied states in East Asia, for U.S. 
Weapons Storage and Security System weapons vaults that would 
reduce response time and increase proximity to potential 
threats, and the costs of constructing the vaults at those 
sites; and
    (8) The potential sensor coverage of potential threats to 
allies and U.S. deployed forces if the United States deployed 
the Ground-based Radar Prototype presently located on Kwajalein 
Atoll at optimal locations in the Baltic States, the South 
Caucuses, Eastern Europe, or in allied states in East Asia, as 
well as the potential sensor coverage of additional forward-
deployed Army-Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance units at 
those locations, and the costs of deploying such sensors.
    (9) Assessment of likely responses by the Russian 
Federation to such options, if implemented, and the interest of 
NATO states in hosting the capabilities described in (2)-(8) 
and an assessment of the Alliance's likely position on the 
deployment of such options, as required.
    The report shall be submitted un unclassified form, with a 
classified portion marked annex as necessary.

 Report on Financial Management Capacity of Afghan Ministry of Defense 
                        and Ministry of Interior

    In November 2013, the Special Inspector General for 
Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) issued a report titled, 
``Comprehensive Risk Assessments of MOD and MOI Financial 
Management Capacity Could Improve Oversight of Over $4 Billion 
in Direct Assistance Funding'' (SIGAR-14-12-SP). The report 
evaluated whether Department of Defense funds provided to the 
Ministry of Defense (MOD) and the Ministry of Interior (MOI) of 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are properly managed and 
safeguarded to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse. The 
Department of Defense reported to SIGAR that, as of September 
2013, it committed $4.2 billion and disbursed nearly $3.0 
billion in direct assistance to the Afghan MOD and MOI for the 
sustainment of the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF), 
including procurement of food, goods, and services; funding 
salaries; and funding minor construction.
    The committee believes that an assessment of the financial 
management capacity of the Afghan MOD and MOI will improve the 
protection of U.S. direct assistance to Afghanistan to fund and 
equip the ANSF and ensure the assistance is used as intended. 
The committee also believes that an assessment of any 
associated risks for U.S. funds will assist the Department of 
Defense in developing mitigation measures to address any such 
risks.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense to conduct a comprehensive assessment 
of the financial management capacity and risks within the 
Afghan MOD and the MOI. The Inspector General should also 
assess the capacity and risks within the Afghan Ministry of 
Finance, to the extent the Inspector General determines that 
such an assessment is required to protect Department funds and 
would not duplicate efforts conducted by other agencies of the 
U.S. Government. Such assessment should:
    (1) Identify core financial management functions within the 
Afghan MOD and MOI, including: financial management and 
accounting capacity; financial accountability and control 
environment; procurement and asset management capacity; 
contracting mechanisms and processes; and management of 
personnel systems;
    (2) Identify major risks and mitigation strategies deemed 
necessary for ensuring that the MOD and MOI are able to manage 
U.S. direct assistance; and
    (3) Assess how a post-2014 United States and North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization residual military presence to train, 
advise, and assist the ANSF would help mitigate any risk in the 
financial management capacity of the Afghan MOD and MOI.
    The committee further directs the Inspector General to 
provide a report on the results of the assessment to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by December 31, 2014.
    The committee is cognizant of the security situation in 
Afghanistan and of other challenges that may affect the 
Inspector General's ability to carry out such an assessment. 
The committee understands that the Inspector General would 
conduct the assessment in phases to accommodate these 
challenges. If the Inspector General cannot complete the 
assessment and deliver the required report by December 31, 
2014, the Inspector General should notify the committees of the 
reasons the assessment cannot be completed by that date and 
include in such notification the date the Inspector General 
expects that the assessment will be completed and submitted.

          Report on Foreign Ballistic Missile Defense Programs

    The committee notes the long-term utility of the annual 
reports on military power of states including the People's 
Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Drawing on 
these examples, as an initial step, the committee is interested 
in better understanding the consequences of the increasing 
reliance on missile defenses by states around the globe.
    For example, the committee was informed by the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his response to its direction in 
the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 that: 
``Russia's objective with its ballistic missile defense (BMD) 
capabilities is to ensure defense of critical political and 
military targets in the Moscow area from a ballistic missile 
attack, either by the United States or any other nation with 
nuclear or conventional ballistic or cruise missile 
capabilities. China desires a BMD capability to protect its 
mainland and strategic forces. At present, China's existing 
long-range surface to air missile inventory offers a limited 
capability against short-range ballistic missiles. China is 
proceeding with research and development toward a missile 
defense umbrella consisting of intercept at exo-atmospheric 
altitudes (>80km), as well as intercepts of ballistic missiles 
and other aerospace vehicles within the upper atmosphere.''
    The committee is also aware that the Republic of India is 
undertaking tests of its anti-ballistic missile defense system 
as part of its efforts to develop and deploy a ballistic 
missile defense shield. The committee is further aware of 
extensive U.S. missile defense cooperation involving the State 
of Israel, the Republic of Korea, Japan, the United Arab 
Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and many 
others.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Defense 
Intelligence Agency, in cooperation with the Director, Missile 
and Space Intelligence Center and the Director, National Air 
and Space Intelligence Center, to provide an unclassified 
report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee 
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not later than 
November 15, 2014, that includes the following:
    (1) A detailed description of ballistic missile defense 
programs of each state that possesses such a program, including 
role and capability of outer space in their system 
architecture, either through indigenous development or 
procurement from another state;
    (2) The missile defense employment policy of that country, 
including any views on the reason such state has its missile 
defense system and any limitations on its use as a defense 
system, as well as any technical or doctrinal indications that 
a state's ballistic missile defense programs are intended to 
defend that state from U.S. ballistic missiles;
    (3) Intent to, and established programs to, modernize such 
systems and relative budget as compared to national defense 
budget; and (4) Indication that a state will abandon its 
ballistic missile defense program if the U.S. provides that 
state guarantees of any sort that U.S. ballistic missile 
defense programs are unrelated to that state's offensive 
forces.

     Report on Operational Contract Support in U.S. Africa Command

    While much attention has been paid to the use of 
contractors by the Department of Defense to support the large-
scale operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, the committee recognizes the 
Department uses contractors to support myriad efforts in other 
locations around the globe. Specifically, within U.S. Africa 
Command (AFRICOM), the Department relies heavily on contractors 
to provide logistical, linguistic, intelligence, and 
transportation support to ongoing training, advising, and other 
assistance missions. While the challenges and deficiencies 
regarding the planning, management, and oversight of 
contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have been well documented, 
and the Department has taken several steps to address these 
challenges, the committee notes that the challenges associated 
with contractor support for other types of operations in other 
regions could be substantially different. In addition to 
broader concerns regarding planning, management, and oversight 
of contracts of this nature, the committee is concerned about 
the extent to which the Department may face operational 
contract support challenges in AFRICOM.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to examine the processes AFRICOM uses to 
plan, manage, and oversee contractors that support its military 
operations conducted in Africa. Specifically, the review should 
include an assessment of the following:
    (1) The extent to which AFRICOM uses contractors to support 
its programs and operations and the appropriateness of how 
AFRICOM uses contractors to support such programs and 
operations;
    (2) The extent to which AFRICOM depends on the Department 
of State to provide operational contract support to its 
activities in Africa and the potential challenges associated 
with this support;
    (3) The organizational structure in place at AFRICOM and 
its subordinate commands to manage operational contract 
support, including planning for the use of contractors and 
oversight of contractors during operations, as well as the 
systems and processes for tracking contractors throughout 
operations;
    (4) The processes used to vet non-United States contractors 
and contractor employees; and
    (5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines 
appropriate with respect to the Department of Defense's 
operational contract support in AFRICOM.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 
March 1, 2015, on the above assessment, with a follow-on report 
delivered to those committees not later than April 15, 2015.

 Report on the Proliferation Activities of Karl Lee and the Support of 
                         the Chinese Government

    The committee is aware that the United States has 
repeatedly invoked sanctions on Karl Lee, a national of the 
People's Republic of China, for his proliferation to the 
Islamic Republic of Iran of components related to its illegal 
ballistic missile program in violation of United States 
statutes (for example, the Iran, North Korea, and Syria 
Nonproliferation Act) and numerous Executive orders.
    The committee is also aware that despite a criminal 
indictment in the United States for these activities, and 
numerous and repeated invocations of United States sanctions 
against him, China has made little apparent effort to respond 
to Karl Lee's activities. The committee believes it would be a 
benefit to the bilateral relationship between the two nations 
if China took efforts to arrest Karl Lee to stop permanently 
his illegal proliferation.
    The committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence 
Agency to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, 
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives, not later than August 31, 2014, providing the 
following: ongoing proliferation activities involving Karl Lee 
or his front companies, and relationships between Karl Lee and 
officials of the Chinese government, including bribes or 
protection payments to ensure that his activities go 
unchallenged by the government. The report should be in 
unclassified form, with a classified annex if necessary.

        Report on U.S. Army Regionally Aligned Brigade in Africa

    In 2013, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) became the first 
geographic combatant command to receive a regionally aligned 
force (RAF). Under the regionally aligned force concept, the 
Army will align designated units to specific regions and deploy 
small groups of personnel from those units to conduct security 
force assistance activities, leaving the rest of the units at 
their home stations. These activities include exercises, 
training events, and other security cooperation and security 
force assistance activities. The RAF units are expected to 
maintain readiness for their core mission even as they support 
the geographic combatant commander's needs. The Army has 
designated one brigade to serve as the regionally aligned force 
for AFRICOM.
    The committee is concerned about potential overlaps in 
roles and responsibilities, and notes that there are other 
Department of Defense security force assistance activities 
underway in Africa, including Africa Contingency Operations 
Training and Assistance efforts and the National Guard's State 
Partnership Program. Furthermore, the committee is concerned 
that these additional mission requirements and the dispersion 
of the RAF may impact the ability of the force to maintain 
readiness for its core mission. Elsewhere in this report, the 
committee expresses support for the Army's RAF concept but also 
states various concerns. In addition, elsewhere in this Act, 
the committee includes a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Army to submit an assessment of the RAF to the 
congressional defense committees concurrent with the submission 
of the President's budget for fiscal year 2016.
    As a complement to this assessment, the committee directs 
the Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the 
employment of the RAF in Africa. The Comptroller General's 
evaluation should be informed by the required Army assessment 
and include the following:
    (1) The extent to which AFRICOM has defined the intended 
roles, responsibilities, goals, objectives, and required 
capabilities for the use of the regionally aligned brigade to 
conduct security force assistance activities, to include 
evaluating the impact of conducted activities;
    (2) The extent to which AFRICOM has identified and 
mitigated potential overlap between the requirements and 
capabilities of the regionally aligned brigade and other 
Department of Defense security force assistance activities 
within AFRICOM;
    (3) The extent to which the regionally aligned brigade has 
been able to meet AFRICOM requirements to conduct security 
force assistance activities, to include the training and 
equipping of brigade personnel and associated costs to meet 
mission requirements;
    (4) What impact, if any, the regionally aligned brigade's 
security force assistance activities and requirements in 
AFRICOM have had on its ability to maintain readiness, to 
include adhering to training schedules; and
    (5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines 
appropriate with respect to the Army's regionally aligned 
brigade in Africa.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a 
preliminary briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2015, on 
the above evaluation, with a report to follow not later than 
April 15, 2015.

  Report on U.S. Government Comprehensive Approach to Strengthen its 
                  Strategic Partnership with Djibouti

    The committee believes that the strategic relationship 
between the U.S. Government and the Government of the Republic 
of Djibouti remains one of the most important strategic 
relationships that the United States has in the region. In 
written testimony submitted to the committee on March 5, 2014, 
the Commander, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) stated that the 
Department of Defense's presence at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, 
``provides a critical platform for our activities, as well as 
those of Central Command, Special Operations Command, and 
Transportation Command.'' The committee further notes the 
importance of the Department's presence in Djibouti in the 
classified annex to this report.
    The committee appreciates the Government of Djibouti's 
continued support of this relationship and therefore, elsewhere 
in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would 
provide an enhanced authority to the Secretary of Defense to 
acquire products and services produced in Djibouti in support 
of Department of Defense activities in AFRICOM.
    However, the committee believes that a comprehensive, long-
term, interagency approach is necessary to support the 
strategic relationship between the two countries, and to 
support ongoing Department of Defense efforts facilitated by 
that relationship. The committee is aware that the Department 
of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development are 
engaged in Djibouti, but believes that these efforts could be 
better coordinated within the interagency and should be robust 
enough to support such a comprehensive approach.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, as well as the Committee on 
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs of the House of Representatives, not later than 
February 6, 2015, on the specific steps the U.S. Government is 
taking to strengthen its strategic relationship with Djibouti, 
including:
    (1) A summary of the strategic goals for the relationship 
between the United States and the Government of Djibouti;
    (2) An assessment of the current state of the relationship 
between the United States and the Government of Djibouti; and
    (3) A detailed description of the steps being taken, and 
additional steps that could be taken, to support a long-term, 
strategic relationship between the United States and the 
Government of Djibouti.

  Report on Updated Independent Cost Estimate of the European Phased 
                           Adaptive Approach

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
provided the October 2012 Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation (CAPE) Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) for the 
European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) on February 25, 2014. 
The committee is aware of both the total acquisition and 
lifecycle cost as well as the statement of the Under Secretary 
of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics that there have been 
numerous requirement content changes to the EPAA since it was 
completed, including mission requirements.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation to update his October 2012 
ICE and submit it directly to the congressional defense 
committees not later than November 15, 2014.

                Republic of China Radar Interoperability

    The committee is aware that the Republic of China (Taiwan) 
possesses a large and highly capable Early Warning Radar. The 
committee believes that, based on its geographical location, 
this radar could be a benefit to United States and allied 
missile defense objectives.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees not later than October 1, 2014, detailing his views 
on any benefits, and associated costs and security 
requirements, of integrating such radar with other United 
States missile defense and sensor systems to improve U.S. 
regional missile defense capabilities. The committee directs 
this report to be provided in unclassified form, with a 
classified annex if necessary.
    Separately, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy may 
provide an additional report detailing his views on the 
benefits and costs of such cooperation.

                  Transfers of Excess Defense Articles

    The committee appreciates the important diplomatic 
interests served by the transfer of Excess Defense Articles 
(EDA) to allied and partner nations. While a properly executed 
EDA program bolsters U.S. diplomatic aims, under section 2321j 
of title 22, United States Code, the EDA program must be 
executed in a way that does not harm the capability or capacity 
of the U.S. defense industrial base, which is particularly 
important during this time of fewer Federal investments in 
defense procurement and research and development.
    The committee is concerned about the adverse impact of 
antiquated equipment transfers on partner nation capacity-
building objectives as well as the harm done to the reputation 
of the U.S. industrial base from transferring non-functional or 
obsolete equipment. In order to ensure that the diplomatic aims 
of EDA are fully appreciated and efforts to enhance the 
sustainment of the U.S defense industrial base with 
international sales are not undermined, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to engage the industrial 
base in providing refurbishment and sustainment of EDA 
equipment, to include supplies and parts, to the fullest extent 
possible.

      United States Security Assistance to the Government of Egypt

    The committee notes with concern the growing Al Qaeda 
presence and associated terrorist attacks in the Arab Republic 
of Egypt. Presently, at least six terrorist groups with links 
to Al Qaeda operate in Egypt, including the Ansar Bayt al-
Maqdis and the al-Furqan Brigades. In recent months, terrorist 
attacks in Egypt claimed the lives of hundreds of Egyptians and 
over 350 soldiers and police officers. Within the past 6 
months, there have been over 280 attacks in the Sinai 
Peninsula. On January 24, 2014, Al Qaeda-linked terrorists 
conducted a series of coordinated attacks that killed 6 and 
injured over 100 people in Cairo.
    Egypt is not only enduring the effects of terrorism from 
the Sinai Peninsula, it is also enduring the increasing flow of 
foreign fighters and military material from its western and 
southern borders with Libya and the Republic of the Sudan, 
respectively.
    The committee understands that the Secretary of State, in 
accordance with section 7041 of the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-71), will certify to Congress that 
Egypt is taking steps to support a democratic transition and 
that the President has made the decision to deliver 10 Apache 
helicopters to support Egypt's counterterrorism operations in 
the Sinai Peninsula. Given the significant increase in 
terrorist activity, the close relationship that the Egyptian 
military has with the U.S. military, and the interim 
Government's support of the peace treaty with the State of 
Israel, the committee supports the President's decision to 
provide the Apache aircraft to the Government of Egypt. The 
committee further believes that the United States should 
provide necessary security assistance to the Government of 
Egypt, specifically focused on areas of mutual security 
interest.
    The committee remains concerned that if the United States 
does not engage through security assistance with the Government 
of Egypt and the Egyptian military, then other countries, such 
as the Russian Federation, may fill this gap, which would work 
at cross-purposes with vital U.S. national security interests.
    The committee continues to closely observe Egypt's 
transition towards a new democratic government structure and is 
encouraged by both the direction and progress that the interim 
Government has made in this realm. In January 2014, Egyptians 
participated in a referendum to approve a new constitution, 
which includes protections for individual freedoms, equal 
protection and rights for all Egyptians, government 
transparency and accountability, and improved civilian 
oversight of the Egyptian military. Additionally, the committee 
is encouraged that the presidential and parliamentary elections 
appear to be on track and likely to be completed by the summer 
of 2014, and urges the Government of Egypt to ensure that the 
elections are free, fair, and devoid of fraud. The committee is 
concerned by reports that there may have been human rights 
violations that have occurred in Egypt. The committee 
encourages the next President of Egypt to address the economic 
and political needs of the Egyptian people, including the 
protections for individual freedom and human rights reflected 
in the new Egyptian constitution.

United States Security Policy and Posture in the Middle East and North 
                                 Africa

    The committee recognizes that the Middle East is undergoing 
significant change, and remains concerned about the 
implications of those changes on security and stability in the 
region and on U.S. policy and posture in the region.
    As the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern 
Affairs testified to the committee on February 11, 2014, ``The 
Middle East today is undergoing historic changes. Across the 
region, we are seeing unprecedented political ferment and in 
some cases upheaval as people demand change.'' Major events 
such as the war in the Republic of Iraq, the Arab Awakening, 
and the ongoing conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, have 
shaped, and are shaping, the Middle East in fundamental and 
irreversible ways. Over the next 6 months, key diplomatic and 
defense related events in the greater Middle East will further 
shape the region and the U.S. engagement therein. These 
include: the likely signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement 
between the United States and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan; the President's decision on a potential post-2014 
U.S. residual presence in Afghanistan; the international effort 
to destroy the chemical precursors and chemical weapons 
production capability of the Assad regime; the continuing 
conflict in Syria; the negotiations between the State of Israel 
and the Palestinian National Authority; the negotiations to 
achieve a comprehensive nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic 
of Iran; and the parliamentary and presidential elections in 
the Arab Republic of Egypt. However, the committee remains 
unclear about how these diplomatic and military activities will 
shape a comprehensive U.S. policy for the Middle East and North 
Africa.
    Officials from key allies and partners in the region, most 
prominently from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the State of 
Israel, and some Gulf States, have made public comments that 
suggest they are concerned that the United States is 
disengaging from the Middle East, or at least that U.S. 
interests appear to be diverging from these allies' interests. 
These public expressions of concern appear to be spurred by the 
ongoing negotiations and interim nuclear deal with Iran, 
disagreements with the United States about how best to respond 
to the conflict in Syria, and the ongoing U.S. ``rebalance to 
the Asia-Pacific'' that may lead to greater U.S. disengagement 
from the Middle East.
    The committee believes that the United States should be 
clear in its commitment to the Middle East and North Africa, 
and that the U.S. forward posture across these regions should 
demonstrably support U.S. stated policy goals and strategy, 
consistent with the ``deep, enduring interest'' and commitment 
expressed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The 
committee also notes that the Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs stated 
before the committee on February 11, 2014, that ``the greater 
Middle East remains a region of vital strategic importance to 
the United States . . . The most tangible sign of U.S. 
commitment that we can make to the security of the region is 
the physical presence of the men and women in uniform as well 
as the presence of advanced military equipment.''
    The committee believes that a commitment to the regular 
funding of U.S. strategic bases that support U.S. forces in the 
Middle East is the most visible way the United States can 
demonstrate its commitment to the region in the short term. The 
committee further believes that the United States' forward 
posture and presence is not sufficient to meet the goals of the 
2014 QDR unless they are also fiscally sustainable. The 
committee is aware that much of the critical U.S. military 
posture and basing in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) 
region, which is used to deter Iran and would be leveraged in 
the event there are any military operations to counter Iran in 
the GCC region, continues to be expeditionary in nature and 
financed through Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. 
The committee recognizes that OCO funding may be phased out in 
the coming years, and therefore remains concerned that the 
Department of Defense has not identified other sources of 
funding to support these strategic bases and presence. In 
addition, the committee notes that the United States does not 
have in place the Status of Forces Agreements, and associated 
defense agreements, with GCC countries to ensure that these 
locations are maintained for the defense of the Arabian Gulf 
and other U.S. national security interests. The committee has 
previously highlighted the need for a sustainable posture and 
relationship with the GCC countries, including language in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66) that required the Secretary of Defense to provide 
the committee with a report addressing its concerns about U.S. 
plans, funding, and agreements in the region.
    The committee expects continued engagement from the 
Department of Defense on U.S. policy and posture in the Middle 
East and North Africa, and on any changes stemming from 
budgetary constraints or policy shifts.

    Updated Report on Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons Developments

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee directed the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency to 
``provide unclassified semi-annual reports, with a classified 
annex if necessary, detailing the status of the development and 
deployment by the Russian Federation of nuclear weapons and 
associated delivery systems not subject to strategic arms 
control treaties. Such reports shall include status of 
deployment, numbers of deployed systems, expected employment 
doctrine, and status of training in the employment of such 
systems by the military forces of the Russian Federation.''
    The committee has received one such report and found it to 
be less responsive to its direction than it hoped. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency 
to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not 
later than October 1, 2014, that includes the following:
    (1) The status of the development and deployment by the 
Russian Federation of nuclear weapons and associated delivery 
systems not subject to strategic arms control treaties;
    (2) The numbers of such deployed and non-deployed systems;
    (3) The expected employment doctrine; and
    (4) The status of training in the employment of such 
systems by Russian military forces.

              Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace

    The budget request contained $24.4 million for the Warsaw 
Initiative Fund (WIF)/Partnership for Peace (PFP) program, 
representing a $9.7 million decrease from the fiscal year 2014 
budget request.
    The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense's 
Warsaw Initiative Fund program is one of the primary tools the 
Department uses to promote defense reform efforts and defense 
institution building with developing partners that are members 
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Partnership for 
Peace program. The committee believes that additional funds are 
necessary to enable U.S. European Command, through military 
exercises and defense reform efforts, to build the capacity of 
PFP militaries in order to promote regional stability and deter 
aggression by the Russian Federation.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $34.4 million, an 
increase of $10.0 million, for the WIF/PFP program.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training


  Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Global Security Contingency Fund

    This section would modify section 1207 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81). This section would broaden the Global Security Contingency 
Fund (GSCF) authority to include small-scale construction, not 
to exceed $750,000 on a per-project basis, as part of the 
authorized types of capacity building. The committee believes 
that small-scale construction, under $750,000 per project, may 
be required for long-term sustainability of capacity building 
activities. However, the committee expects that any small-scale 
construction projects authorized under this section would be a 
supporting, logical component of a comprehensive GSCF program, 
and not a stand-alone project.
    This section would also authorize a 1-year extension of the 
GSCF and state that amounts appropriated or transferred to the 
Fund before the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 shall remain available 
for obligation and expenditure after September 30, 2015, only 
if activities under programs under section 1207(b) begin before 
September 30, 2015.
    The committee remains concerned about the progress of the 
GSCF, as previously stated in the committee report (H. Rept. 
113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014 and the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013. The committee believes that if the Department 
of Defense and the Department of State cannot successfully 
establish full operational capability for the GSCF, including 
planning, executing, and assessing GSCF activities, then it may 
consider not renewing this authority in future years.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends no 
dedicated funding for GSCF; rather, the committee believes 
projects contemplated under GSCF should compete within other 
security assistance priorities for funds otherwise available to 
the Department as they have been.

Section 1202--Notice to Congress on Certain Assistance Under Authority 
to Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Foreign Countries to 
       Respond to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction

    This section would amend section 1204 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) by adding the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives to the notification requirement.

 Section 1203--Enhanced Authority for Provision of Support to Foreign 
 Military Liaison Officers of Foreign Countries While Assigned to the 
                         Department of Defense

    This section would amend section 1051a of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide 
administrative and support services, to include certain 
training programs, for liaison officers of a foreign country, 
while such liaison officers are assigned temporarily to the 
headquarters of a combatant command, component command, or 
subordinate operational command of the United States. This 
section would further amend section 1051a of title 10, United 
States Code, to include a limitation on the authorized number 
of liaison officers and amount of unreimbursed support for 
travel, subsistence, and medical care expenses per fiscal year 
for any such liaison officer. This section would also require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees an annual report on January 31 of each year from 
2016-18 on the summary of expenses incurred by the United 
States for liaison officers of a developing country, and 
include the Department of Defense's definition of a 
``developing country'' as used for the purposes of this 
authority.
    The committee recognizes the role of foreign liaison 
officers at the combatant commands and component commands to 
provide expertise to the commander and staff to better 
understand the respective region and plan for contingencies in 
the command's area of responsibility. Although the committee 
recognizes foreign liaison officers are present at all 
commands, section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, 
provides specific authority to the Secretary of Defense to 
provide administrative and financial support to those liaison 
officers of a developing country involved in a current U.S. 
military operation. The committee believes the commands should 
continue to benefit from the unique contributions of the 
liaison officers beyond current military operations, such as 
Operation Enduring Freedom.

 Section 1204--Annual Report on Human Rights Vetting and Verification 
                Procedures of the Department of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit to Congress 
an annual report on human rights vetting and verification 
procedures of the Department of Defense. This report shall be 
submitted at the same time as the budget of the President is 
submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United 
States Code.

        Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan


 Section 1211--Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program in 
                              Afghanistan

    This section would amend section 1201 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), as most recently amended by section 1211 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), by extending for 1 year the Commanders' Emergency Response 
Program in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

   Section 1212--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain 
   Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military 
                               Operations

    This section would amend section 1233 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as most recently amended by section 1213 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), by extending the authority for reimbursement of coalition 
nations for support provided to the United States for military 
operations through fiscal year 2015, and making certain 
technical amendments.
    Additionally, this section would prohibit the reimbursement 
of support provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan until such time as the Secretary of Defense 
certifies to the congressional defense committees that Pakistan 
is maintaining security and is not, through its actions or 
inaction at any level of government, limiting or otherwise 
restricting the movement of U.S. equipment and supplies along 
the Ground Lines of Communication through Pakistan, and that 
Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps to: (1) support 
counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda, Tehrik-i-Taliban 
Pakistan, and other militant groups such as the Haqqani Network 
and the Quetta Shura Taliban; (2) disrupt the conduct of cross-
border attacks against U.S., coalition, and Afghan security 
forces; (3) counter the threat of improvised explosive device 
networks; and (4) conduct cross-border coordination and 
communication with Afghan security forces and U.S. Armed 
Forces.

 Section 1213--Extension of Certain Authorities for Support of Foreign 
 Forces Supporting or Participating with the United States Armed Forces

    This section would amend section 1234 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) and section 1202(e) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), as 
most recently amended by sections 1217(a) and 1217(b) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66), respectively. Specifically, it would extend the 
authority to (1) provide supplies, services, transportation 
(including airlift and sealift), and other logistical support 
to coalition forces supporting United States military and 
stabilization operations in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan; and (2) use acquisition and cross-servicing 
agreements to lend military equipment to the military forces of 
a nation participating in combined operations with the United 
States in Afghanistan.
    The committee recognizes that the United States may be 
involved in a combined operation with partner nations in 
Afghanistan as part of Operation Resolute Support, following 
the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission in 
Afghanistan on December 31, 2014. Should the President decide 
to commit the United States to a post-2014 presence and mission 
as part of Operation Resolute Support, such partner nations 
would require logistical support and the lending of military 
equipment from U.S. forces in Afghanistan to effectively 
execute the Operation Resolute Support mission.

   Section 1214--Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in 
              Afghanistan under Operation Resolute Support

    This section would create a new ``Report on Progress Toward 
Security and Stability in Afghanistan.'' It would include 
reporting requirements similar to those originally contained in 
section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently amended 
by section 1218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), but updated to reflect 
the post-2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) effort 
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan known as Operation 
Resolute Support.
    In addition, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit 
such report to the congressional defense committees, the 
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not later 
than April 1, 2015, and every 180 days thereafter, on the 
progress toward security and stability in Afghanistan under 
Operation Resolute Support.
    Lastly, this section would extend the original ``Report on 
Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan'' for 3 
months and sunset it on December 31, 2014.

Section 1215--Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense Assistance 
    to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 150 Percent of All Taxes 
  Assessed by Afghanistan to Extent Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed by 
                              Afghanistan

    This section would require the Department of Defense to 
withhold fiscal year 2015 funds appropriated for assistance to 
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in the 
amount equivalent to 150 percent of the total taxes assessed 
during fiscal year 2014 by Afghanistan on such assistance. This 
withhold would continue to the extent that the Secretary of 
Defense certifies that Afghanistan has not provided a 
reimbursement for those taxes to the Department, or relevant 
Department contractors and subcontractors. The Secretary of 
Defense may waive such requirement if it is necessary to 
achieve U.S. goals in Afghanistan.
    Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report, not later than March 1, 2015, to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives, on the total taxes assessed during fiscal year 
2014 by the Government of Afghanistan on any Department of 
Defense assistance.
    Lastly, this section would terminate once the Secretary of 
Defense notifies the appropriate committees that the United 
States and Afghanistan have signed a bilateral security 
agreement and that such agreement has entered into force.
    The committee notes that such taxation by Afghanistan on 
Department of Defense assistance is a violation of the status 
of forces agreement (SOFA) between the United States and 
Afghanistan. The committee expects the Government of 
Afghanistan to adhere to this SOFA and not levy illegitimate 
taxes and penalties on Department of Defense contractors and 
subcontractors providing services in Afghanistan.

    Section 1216--United States Plan for Sustaining the Afghanistan 
      National Security Forces Through the End of Fiscal Year 2018

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report 
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to 
the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
of the House of Representatives, that contains a detailed plan 
for sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) 
through the end of fiscal year 2018, consistent with plans that 
are being considered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 
The objective of such plan is to ensure that the ANSF will be 
able to independently and effectively conduct operations and 
maintain security and stability in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan.

Section 1217--Sense of Congress on United States Military Commitment to 
               Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan

    This section would express the sense of Congress on the 
United States military commitment to Operation Resolute Support 
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to include: the 
importance of maintaining a U.S. residual presence in 
Afghanistan for Operation Resolute Support beginning on January 
1, 2015; the importance of achieving a signed Bilateral 
Security Agreement, and a status of forces agreement to support 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission; and, 
continuing to financially support the Afghanistan National 
Security Forces (ANSF) due to the vital interests that the 
United States continues to have in Afghanistan.
    The committee applauds the gains achieved by the United 
States, NATO, and its coalition partners in Afghanistan, to 
include:
    (1) The International Security and Assistance Force has 
trained and is building the ANSF, including doubling the ANSF 
in size between 2009-14, to its current end strength of 
approximately 352,000 personnel;
    (2) The ANSF currently executes 95 percent of its 
conventional operations and 98 percent of its special 
operations missions across Afghanistan;
    (3) The United States signed a Strategic Partnership 
Agreement with the Government of Afghanistan and has designated 
Afghanistan as a major non-NATO ally;
    (4) Life expectancy in Afghanistan has increased from 37 
years of age in 2000 to 56 years of age in 2014;
    (5) 65 percent of the Afghan population has access to the 
Internet;
    (6) There are four times more healthcare facilities in 
Afghanistan in 2014 than in 2003;
    (7) More than 10,000,000 children are attending school, 
including 3,000,000 girls, in Afghanistan;
    (8) There are more than 13,000 general education schools in 
Afghanistan; and
    (9) Paved roads have increased from just 32 miles in 2002 
to 7,500 miles in 2014.
    The committee notes that the term Operation Resolute 
Support refers to the NATO mission in Afghanistan beginning on 
January 1, 2015.

      Section 1218--Extension of Afghan Special Immigrant Program

    This section would authorize a certain number of visas for 
principal aliens who may be provided special immigrant visa 
status in accordance with section 602(b)(3) of the Afghan 
Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101). This section 
would also extend the period in which the principal alien must 
be employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to December 31, 2015. 
Additionally, this section would extend the period in which the 
principal alien must apply to the Chief of Mission in 
Afghanistan to September 30, 2015. The authorization in this 
section would terminate on September 30, 2016.

         Subtitle C--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation


 Section 1221--Limitation on Military Contact and Cooperation between 
              the United States and the Russian Federation

    This section would prohibit the use of funds for fiscal 
year 2015 for bilateral military-to-military contact or 
cooperation between the United States and the Russian 
Federation until the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
the Secretary of State, certifies to the appropriate 
congressional committees that Russia is respecting the 
sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, no longer acting 
inconsistently with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces 
Treaty, in compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed 
Forces in Europe, and Russia has not sold or transferred the 
Club-K land attack cruise missile system to any foreign country 
or person during fiscal year 2014. This section would include a 
waiver for the Secretary of Defense, pending a notification, in 
coordination with the Secretary of State, to the appropriate 
congressional committees that such contact or cooperation is in 
the national security interest of the United States and a 
period of 30 days has elapsed following the notification. 
Further, the certification regarding the sale or transfer of 
the Club-K cruise missile could be waived by the Secretary of 
Defense if the United States has imposed sanctions against the 
manufacturer of such system by reason of the sale or transfer, 
or, if the Secretary has developed and submitted to the 
appropriate congressional committees a plan to prevent the sale 
or other transfer of such system in the future.
    The committee notes that at the time this report was filed, 
the Secretary of Defense has suspended military exercises, 
bilateral meetings, port visits, and planning conferences 
between the Armed Forces of the United States and Russia in 
response to ongoing Russian aggression towards Ukraine. The 
committee believes that U.S.-Russia military contact and 
cooperation must remain suspended so long as Russia continues 
its aggression towards Ukraine and continues to take actions 
inconsistent with its treaty obligations.

Section 1222--Limitation on Use of Funds With Respect to Certification 
 of Certain Flights by the Russian Federation Under the Treaty on Open 
                                 Skies

    This section would impose a limitation on the use of funds 
to permit the certification of a proposal by the Russian 
Federation to change any sensor package for a flight by Russia 
under the Open Skies Treaty unless: (1) the Secretary of 
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 
Director of National Intelligence jointly certify to the 
appropriate congressional committees that such proposal will 
not enhance the capability or potential of the Russian 
Federation to gather intelligence that poses an unacceptable 
risk to the national security of the United States or is not 
designed to be collected under such treaty; and (2) the 
Secretary of State certifies to the appropriate congressional 
committees that Russia is no longer illegally occupying 
Ukrainian territory, the Russian Federation is no longer 
violating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and is 
in compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. 
The President would be able to waive this section if he submits 
to the appropriate congressional committees a certification 
that it is in the national security interest of the United 
States to do so. The section would also require a 90 day 
notice-and-wait prior to the approval of a Russian proposal.
    The committee is committed to effective and complete 
compliance with the Treaty on Open Skies, provided such 
compliance is not allowed to become a threat to the national 
security of the United States.
    The committees notes its request for a briefing on the 
ongoing implementation of the Treaty on Open Skies, and that 
this briefing was postponed at the request of the 
Administration. The committee looks forward to receiving this 
briefing and plans to continue close oversight of this issue.

    Section 1223--Limitations on Providing Certain Missile Defense 
                 Information to the Russian Federation

    This section would extend the sunset date on certain 
measures relating to the provision or prohibition on the 
provision of U.S. missile defense information to the Russian 
Federation. This section would also add a new prohibition on 
the transfer of velocity at burnout information to Russia. 
Additionally, this section would add the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 
the House of Representatives to the specified recipients of the 
notification required under this section.

 Section 1224--Limitation on Availability of Funds to Transfer Missile 
             Defense Information to the Russian Federation

    This section would limit the use of funds in a fiscal year 
to transfer missile defense information to the Russian 
Federation unless the President has submitted a report to the 
congressional defense committees by October 31st of such fiscal 
year detailing discussions between the United States and Russia 
during the prior fiscal year.

Section 1225--Report on Non-Compliance by the Russian Federation of Its 
                    Obligations under the INF Treaty

    This section would express the sense of Congress regarding 
the material breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces 
Treaty by the Russian Federation, and would require the 
President to report not later than 90 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, on 
efforts to have Russia return to being in compliance with the 
treaty, and the President's assessment as to whether it remains 
in the national security interest of the United States to 
remain a party to the treaty.

  Section 1226--Sense of Congress Regarding Russian Aggression Toward 
                                Ukraine

    This section would express the sense of Congress regarding 
Russian aggression towards Ukraine.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes with concern 
the recent actions undertaken by the Government of the Russian 
Federation in Ukraine. The committee believes both the overt 
and covert actions taken by the Russian military and Government 
to seize and annex Crimea, destabilize eastern Ukraine, and 
threaten further military action against the Government of 
Ukraine, are clearly meant to coerce the Government and people 
of Ukraine into adopting policies and an orientation centered 
on Russia and away from Europe and the West.

   Section 1227--Annual Report on Military and Security Developments 
                    Involving the Russian Federation

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not 
later than June 1, 2015 and annually thereafter through 2021, 
to submit to the specified congressional committees a report on 
the current and future military power of the Russian 
Federation. The report would address the current and probable 
future course of military-technological development of Russian 
security and military strategy, and military organizations and 
operational concepts, for the 20-year period following the 
report. This section would also repeal section 10 of the 
Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic 
Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-95).

        Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region


  Section 1231--Strategy to Prioritize United States Interests in the 
United States Pacific Command Area of Responsibility and Implementation 
                                  Plan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of State and the heads of other 
Federal departments and agencies, to develop a strategy to 
prioritize United States interests in the U.S. Pacific 
Command's area of responsibility. This section would further 
require the President, acting through the National Security 
Council and in coordination with the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, to develop an implementation plan for 
the strategy, and to submit a report to Congress containing the 
strategy and implementation plans not later than 1 year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.

 Section 1232--Modifications to Annual Report on Military and Security 
         Developments Involving the People's Republic of China

    This section would modify section 1202 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) to include an additional reporting requirement on 
developments in the maritime law enforcement capabilities and 
organization of the People's Republic of China.

     Section 1233--Report on Goals and Objectives Guiding Military 
                         Engagement with Burma

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit to the 
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
of the House of Representatives, not later than December 1, 
2014, a report on the goals and objectives guiding military-to-
military engagement between the United States and the Union of 
Burma. This section would further require the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit 
an annual update to the required report to the aforementioned 
committees that would sunset after a 5-year period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
    The committee welcomes the commitment to reform made by the 
Government of Burma. However, the committee notes that the 
Government of Burma needs to progress in: protecting the 
individual freedoms and human rights of the Burmese people, 
including for all ethnic and religious minorities and 
internally displaced populations; establishing civilian control 
of the armed forces; severing military-to-military ties with 
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; implementing 
constitutional and electoral reforms; and implementing 
mechanisms for increased governmental transparency and 
accountability.
    The committee recognizes the role that the U.S. military 
can play in improving the Burmese military's understanding of 
human rights, the rule of law, and civilian control of the 
military. The committee encourages the Department of Defense 
and the Department of State to communicate the relationship 
between U.S.-Burma military-to-military engagement and reform 
efforts undertaken by the Government of Burma.

 Section 1234--Report on Department of Defense Munitions Strategy for 
                     United States Pacific Command

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report by April 1, 2015 to the congressional defense 
committees, on U.S. Pacific Command's 10-year munitions 
strategy, including munitions requirements, gaps and 
shortfalls, and investment plans.

               Section 1235--Missile Defense Cooperation

    This section would express the sense of Congress that 
increased missile defense cooperation among the United States, 
Japan and the Republic of Korea enhances the security of allies 
of the United States in northeast Asia, increases the defense 
of forward-based forces of the United States, and enhances the 
protection of the United States.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an assessment to identify opportunities for increasing 
missile defense cooperation among the United States, Japan, and 
the Republic of Korea, and to evaluate options for short-range 
missile, rocket, and artillery defense capabilities, including 
several specific elements. The Secretary would be required to 
brief the congressional defense committees on such assessment 
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

 Section 1236--Maritime Capabilities of Taiwan and Its Contribution to 
                      Regional Peace and Stability

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 
submit a report on the maritime capabilities of Taiwan and its 
contribution to regional peace and stability to the 
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
of the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 2016. 
This section would also express the sense of Congress on 
Taiwan.

  Section 1237--Independent Assessment on Countering Anti-access and 
   Area-denial Strategies and Capabilities in the Asia-Pacific Region

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
enter into an agreement with an independent entity to conduct 
an assessment of anti-access and area-denial strategies and 
capabilities that pose a threat to security in the Asia-Pacific 
region and strategies to mitigate such threats. This section 
would further require the Secretary to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2015, 
containing the assessment and strategies.

  Section 1238--Sense of Congress Reaffirming Security Commitment to 
                                 Japan

    This section would express the sense of Congress regarding 
the continued importance of the alliance between the United 
States and Japan for Asia-Pacific stability and prosperity.

    Section 1239--Sense of Congress on Opportunities to Strengthen 
    Relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea

    This section would express the sense of Congress regarding 
the continued importance of the alliance between the United 
States and the Republic of Korea for Asia-Pacific stability and 
prosperity.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Section 1241--Extension of Authority for Support of Special Operations 
                          to Combat Terrorism

    This section would extend through 2017 the authority for 
support of special operations to combat terrorism pursuant to 
section 1208 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as 
amended most recently by section 1203(c) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81). Further discussion of this provision is contained in the 
classified annex to this report.

Section 1242--One-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-Conventional 
                     Assisted Recovery Capabilities

    This section would extend by 1 year the authority for non-
conventional assisted recovery capabilities pursuant to 
subsection (h) of section 943 of the Duncan Hunter National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417), as amended most recently by section 1203(c) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81).

   Section 1243--Extension and Modification of Authority to Support 
Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq

    This section would amend section 1215(f)(1) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), as most recently amended by section 1214 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), by extending the authority for the Office of Security 
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I) through fiscal year 2015, to 
include clarifying that the Secretary of Defense, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of State, may authorize OSC-I to 
conduct training activities in support of Iraqi Ministry of 
Defense and Counter Terrorism Service (CTS) personnel at a base 
or facility of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to 
address capability gaps, integrate processes relating to 
intelligence, air sovereignty, combined arms, logistics and 
maintenance, and to manage and integrate defense-related 
institutions.

 Section 1244--Modification of National Security Planning Guidance to 
   Deny Safe Havens to Al-Qaeda and Its Violent Extremist Affiliates

    This section would modify section 1032 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) by requiring the President to provide to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, 
the required national security planning guidance, including any 
updates to such guidance, to deny safe havens to Al Qaeda and 
its violent extremist affiliates not later than October 1, 
2014. Additionally, this section would add an element to the 
required guidance that would describe the feasibility, 
resourcing, authorities required, and potential benefit of 
conducting multilateral training and equipping of military 
forces in relevant countries.
    The committee remains concerned about the worldwide 
evolution and growth of Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and 
associated groups, as noted by non-U.S. Government experts at a 
February 2014 committee hearing. Al Qaeda has been able to 
evolve and grow largely due to safe havens in certain locations 
such as the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Iraq, and 
Libya, to name a few.
    While section 1032 of Public Law 112-81 required the 
President to issue national security planning guidance to deny 
safe havens to Al Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates, 
it did not require the submission of such guidance to the 
relevant congressional committees. However, the conference 
report (H. Rept. 112-329) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 requested that the 
conferees be briefed on the guidance issued by the President. 
The committee notes that such briefing was not provided.

   Section 1245--Enhanced Authority to Acquire Goods and Services of 
   Djibouti in Support of Department of Defense Activities in United 
              States Africa Command Area of Responsibility

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with an 
enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in 
the Republic of Djibouti in support of Department of Defense 
activities in the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) area of 
responsibility. The Secretary would be required to make a 
determination that: (1) the product or service is to be used 
only in support of Department activities in AFRICOM; (2) the 
limit on competition or preference for Djiboutian products or 
services is vital to the national security interest of the 
United States; (3) the Djiboutian product or service is of 
equivalent quality to that which would have been otherwise 
acquired; and (4) the limitation or preference will not 
adversely affect U.S. military or stability operations in 
AFRICOM or the U.S. industrial base. The authority provided in 
this section would terminate on September 30, 2018.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure that such procurement of Djiboutian products or services 
is conducted in accordance with Department of Defense 
management structure requirements in section 2330(a) of title 
10, United States Code, and identified and reported under a 
single, joint Department of Defense-wide system for the 
management and accountability of contractors operating 
overseas. It would also require the Secretary to ensure that 
AFRICOM has sufficiently trained staff and resources to conduct 
oversight of such procurement activities in order to detect and 
deter fraud, waste, and abuse.
    Additionally, this section would express the sense of 
Congress that U.S. forces should remain forward postured in 
Africa and the Middle East; that Djibouti is strategically 
located to support U.S. vital national security interests; that 
the United States should take definitive steps to maintain its 
basing access and agreements with the Government of Djibouti; 
that the United States should devise and implement a 
comprehensive approach to reinforce the strategic partnership 
with the Government of Djibouti; and that the Secretary of 
State, the Administrator for the United States Agency for 
International Development, and the Secretary of Defense should 
take concrete steps to advance and strengthen the relationship 
between the United States and the Government of Djibouti.
    The committee believes that this is an exceptional 
situation and recommends this authority because it recognizes 
that the U.S. military basing in Djibouti provides unique 
strategic positioning and access to the region, which has and 
continues to support vital U.S. national security interests. 
Additional detail on the criticality of U.S. basing in Djibouti 
is contained in the classified annex to this report. The 
committee believes that the United States must take proactive 
steps to reinforce a long-term, strategic relationship with the 
Government of Djibouti in order to support such vital national 
security interests. Elsewhere in this report, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
Secretary of State, to submit a report to certain committees 
outlining the specific steps that the Department of State is 
taking to strengthen its strategic relationship with Djibouti.

  Section 1246--Strategic Framework for United States Security Force 
    Assistance and Cooperation in the European and Eurasian Regions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of State, to develop a 
strategic framework for security force assistance and 
cooperation in Europe and Eurasia. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
Secretary of State, to submit a report on the strategic 
framework within 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
of the House of Representatives.
    The committee believes that a comprehensive strategic 
framework for security force assistance is important for 
building and maintaining the partner capacity of European and 
Eurasian forces. The committee recognizes and values the 
interoperability and combat gains made by European and Eurasian 
allied and partner forces, earned as a result of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International Security 
Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, and it does not want to see these gains lost after 
the ISAF mission ends in December 2014. The committee believes 
the strategic framework should focus on those nations for which 
the Department of Defense has leveraged its building 
partnership capacity authorities, to include the Global Train 
and Equip, Warsaw Initiative Fund, and Global Security 
Contingency Fund authorities.

    Section 1247--Requirement of Department of Defense to Continue 
  Implementation of United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to 
Gender-based Violence Globally and Participation in Interagency Working 
                                 Group

    This section would express the sense of Congress that 
combating violence against women and girls worldwide is 
critical to promoting regional and global stability and 
achieving sustainable peace and security. This section would 
further require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, to provide a briefing to 
the appropriate congressional committees on efforts by the 
Department of Defense relating to its participation in the 
interagency working group to implement the U.S. Strategy to 
Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally, and to 
continue implementing the strategy as appropriate.

 Section 1248--Department of Defense Situational Awareness of Economic 
                         and Financial Activity

    This section would set forth a number of findings and 
require the Secretary of Defense to take such steps as 
necessary to improve the situational awareness capabilities of 
the Department of Defense regarding legal and licit business 
transactions of adversaries and potential adversaries, and to 
improve the ability of the Department to translate such 
capabilities into certain activities of the Department.

   Section 1249--Treatment of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the 
 Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Under the Immigration and Nationality Act

    This section would authorize the Secretary of State, after 
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
Attorney General of the United States, or the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of 
State and the Attorney General, to exclude the Kurdistan 
Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan 
(PUK) from the definition of a terrorist organization in 
section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III)) for the 
purpose of issuing a temporary visa to a member of the KDP or 
PUK.
    Additionally, this section would prohibit judicial review 
by any court that has jurisdiction to review any determinations 
made in accordance with the authority in this section.

Section 1250--Prohibition on the Integration of Certain Missile Defense 
                                Systems

    The section would continue the prohibition enacted in 
section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) regarding the use of 
Department of Defense funds to integrate the missile defense 
systems of the People's Republic of China into the missile 
defense systems of the United States.

          Subtitle F--Reports and Sense of Congress Provisions


Section 1261--Report on ``New Normal'' and General Mission Requirements 
                    of United States Africa Command

    This section would express a sense of Congress on the force 
structure and force posture of AFRICOM within the context of 
``New Normal'' and its general mission requirements.
    Following the terrorist attack against U.S. facilities in 
Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, the U.S. Government 
established a ``New Normal'' set of requirements and associated 
resourcing worldwide. The committee is aware that with the 
current force posture and structure of the U.S. Africa Command 
(AFRICOM), the United States is accepting a high level of risk 
in defending U.S. posts that have been determined to be ``high 
risk, high threat'' as part of the ``New Normal'' requirements. 
Moreover, the committee is concerned that AFRICOM does not have 
sufficient assigned military forces; intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance assets; crisis response 
forces; and enablers to meet the ``New Normal'' requirements.
    Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
of the House of Representatives not later than January 15, 
2015, on how the ``New Normal'' has changed AFRICOM's force 
posture and force structure requirements. The committee expects 
the report to include inputs and views from the Commander, U.S. 
Africa Command.

Section 1262--Report on Contractors with the Department of Defense That 
  Have Conducted Significant Transactions with Iranian Persons or the 
                           Government of Iran

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit an annual report to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs of the House of Representatives, within 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, that contains:
    (1) A list of each contractor with the Department of 
Defense that has conducted a significant transaction with an 
Iranian individual or corporation;
    (2) A list of each contractor with the Department that has 
conducted significant transactions with an Iranian individual 
or corporation whose property has been blocked by the United 
States Government during the 5-year period prior to the 
submission of this report; and
    (3) The value of such significant transactions.
    The period for the annual report required by this section 
would not exceed 3 years.

            Section 1263--Reports on Nuclear Program of Iran

    This section would require the President to submit a report 
to Congress, within 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, on the interim agreement related to the Islamic 
Republic of Iran's nuclear program, including a verification of 
whether Iran is complying with such agreement and an assessment 
of the overall state of Iran's nuclear program.
    Additionally, this section would require the President to 
submit additional reports to Congress on the nuclear program of 
Iran. If the interim agreement related to Iran's nuclear 
program is renewed or if a comprehensive agreement is entered 
into, the President is required to submit to Congress a report 
on such interim agreement or comprehensive agreement with the 
Government of Iran. These additional reports would be submitted 
to Congress not later than 90 days after a renewal of the 
interim agreement or 90 days after entering into a 
comprehensive agreement with the Government of Iran.

     Section 1264--Sense of Congress on United States Presence and 
          Cooperation in the Arabian Gulf Region to Deter Iran

    This section would express the sense of Congress on the 
U.S. forward presence and cooperation in the region of the 
Arabian Gulf in order to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran. 
Elements of this section would include statements that the 
United States should: maintain a robust forward presence and 
posture in the Arabian Gulf; seek ways to support the security 
posture of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and the 
State of Israel; move funding of key strategic bases in the 
Arabian Gulf region into the Department of Defense's base 
budget; and seek to complete status of forces and defense 
agreements with GCC countries to support the defense of the 
Arabian Gulf.
    Furthermore, this section would state that any 
comprehensive agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program 
should address past and present issues of concern of the United 
States, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the United 
Nations Security Council. Additionally, this section would 
express that any comprehensive agreement should be agreed to by 
the United States only if: (1) Iran ceases enrichment of 
uranium; (2) Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and 
development of its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, 
its ballistic missiles, and ballistic missile launch 
technology, including verifiable dismantlement; and (3) the 
Government of Iran has ceased providing support for acts of 
international terrorism.
    Finally, the sense of Congress would state that the United 
States should continue to put pressure on Iran's network of 
organizations that conduct malign activities, and the U.S. 
Government should not enter into a contract with any person or 
entity that has violated U.S. sanctions laws with respect to 
contracting with the Government of Iran.

      Section 1265--Sense of Congress on Modernization of Defense 
                         Capabilities of Poland

    The provision would express the sense of Congress that the 
Polish defense modernization program is an important 
opportunity to strengthen the U.S.-Poland bilateral 
relationship.

                TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for the Department of Defense 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $365.1 
million for fiscal year 2015, representing an decrease of 
$163.3 million from the amount requested and authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2014. The request included $20.7 
million for the Global Nuclear Security (GNS) Program, $256.8 
million for CBEP, and $40.7 million for the Proliferation 
Prevention Program (PPP).
    The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR 
program and believes that the program is important to United 
States national security. In past years, the committee has 
expressed concern that a lack of effective policy guidance and 
leadership, as well as programmatic and funding constraints, 
have sometimes limited progress of the CTR program. The 
committee notes, however, that the CTR program has made 
significant achievements, and that much work remains to be done 
as new threats emerge. The committee is also aware of the 
Department's efforts to identify and streamline CTR 
authorities.
    Congress has addressed these concerns in recent national 
defense authorization acts by: repealing limitations on the use 
of CTR funds; expanding CTR authority outside the former Soviet 
Union; increasing CTR funding, including funding for new CTR 
initiatives; requiring reports by the National Academy of 
Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new 
CTR initiatives and metrics; requiring a report by the 
Secretary of Defense regarding efforts to complete the chemical 
weapons destruction project in the Russian Federation at 
Schuch'ye; requiring increased reporting from the Secretary of 
Defense on CTR defense and military contacts; providing CTR 
programs with authority for urgent threat reduction activities; 
authorizing the CTR program to accept international 
contributions; and ensuring that the CTR program addresses 
threats involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and 
weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise.
    The committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological 
Engagement Program (CBEP) now encompasses 70 percent of the CTR 
budget request. The committee reaffirms its view, stated in the 
committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, and reaffirmed 
in the two most recent committee reports accompanying the House 
of Representatives-passed national defense authorization acts, 
that biological threat reduction and engagement ``should be 
guided by a comprehensive long-term interagency engagement and 
coordination; rigorous Department management and oversight; 
coordination and integration with other Department programs and 
activities; and concrete metrics for measuring progress.'' The 
committee further reaffirms its view that the CTR program as a 
whole should ``maintain a strong focus'' on the full range of 
threat reduction challenges. The committee continues to believe 
that concrete metrics remain important for measuring the impact 
and effectiveness of CBEP activities. Lastly, the committee 
welcomes efforts by the Department of Defense to actively 
consult with the committee and to keep it fully informed of 
efforts and developments in these areas.
    The committee recommends $365.1 million, the amount of the 
budget request, for the CTR program. The committee believes 
that no CTR funds for fiscal year 2015 should be authorized for 
activities with the Russian Federation based on ongoing Russian 
aggression towards Ukraine. Therefore, the committee recommends 
$17.7 million for the GNS Program, a decrease of $3.0 million; 
$254.3 million for CBEP, a decrease of $2.4 million; and $46.1 
million for PPP, an increase of $5.4 million.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


               Cooperative Biological Engagement Program

    The budget request contained $365.1 million for the 
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) 
program, of which $256.8 million was requested for the 
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP). The committee 
notes that the CBEP share of the total CTR program budget 
continues to increase. The budget request would allocate 70 
percent of the fiscal year 2015 CTR funds to CBEP as compared 
to the 40 percent that was allocated in fiscal year 2011.
    The committee questions the focus on infrastructure 
projects that the CBEP continues to fund, with approximately 
$34.7 million of CBEP's budget request allocated towards 
laboratory construction and renovation in the former Soviet 
Union republics. While the committee supports the CBEP mission 
to build the capabilities and capacities of key partners to 
rapidly detect, investigate, report, and secure dangerous 
biological pathogens, it is concerned about the CBEP's focus on 
building and renovating laboratories. The committee is aware of 
the program's plan to phase out funding for these 
infrastructure projects in the next few years as the projects 
are completed. However, the committee believes that, in the 
current fiscal environment, the Department should focus its CTR 
resources on more efficient and effective means to build 
partnership capacities to counter biological weapons of mass 
destruction. The committee will continue to oversee these 
projects to ensure the CBEP is properly positioned to meet 
evolving biological threats, both in the region and around the 
world.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 
                               and Funds

    This section would define the programs and funds that are 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those 
authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and 
specify that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation 
for 3 fiscal years.

                   Section 1302--Funding Allocations

    This section would allocate specific amounts for each 
program under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 
Reduction (CTR) program from within the overall $365.1 million 
that the committee would authorize for the CTR program. The 
allocation under this section reflects the amount of the budget 
request for fiscal year 2015. This section would also require 
notifications to Congress 15 days before the Secretary of 
Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2015 funds for 
purposes other than those specifically authorized. In addition, 
this section would provide limited authority to obligate 
amounts for a program element under the CTR program in excess 
of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose.

   Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Cooperative 
          Threat Reduction Activities with Russian Federation

    This section would limit Cooperative Threat Reduction 
fiscal year 2015 funding to the Russian Federation until the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 
State, certifies to the appropriate congressional committees 
that Russia is respecting the sovereignty of Ukrainian 
territory, no longer acting inconsistently with the 
Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and in compliance 
with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This 
section would include a waiver for the Secretary of Defense, 
pending a notification, in coordination with the Secretary of 
State, to the appropriate congressional committees that such 
contact or cooperation is in the national security interest of 
the United States and a period of 30 days has elapsed following 
the notification.

                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


 Progress on Determining Sufficient Working Capital Fund Cash Balances

    The committee has been concerned for a number of years that 
the determination of prices and rates for Defense Working 
Capital Fund activities is driven by an arbitrary, outdated 
goal of maintaining 7 to 10 days of cash to sustain business 
operations. This metric cannot respond to changes related to 
external pressures such as fluctuations in commodity markets 
that are outside of the Department of Defense's control.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 
examining a range of alternative cash balance parameters by 
which the revolving funds could be managed to sustain a single 
rate or price to the customer throughout the fiscal year. 
Having found this report to be insufficient, the committee 
directed a study in section 1402 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) 
requiring an independent review of each working capital fund 
within the Department to ascertain the appropriate cash corpus 
required to maintain good financial management of each fund. 
This study was thorough and informative but did not provide for 
change within management of the working capital funds. In the 
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013, the committee 
responded by recommending that the Department modify its 
Financial Management Regulations to adjust the range of the 
cash corpus required for fuel-related working capital funds to 
mitigate the continued fluctuation of rates charged to the 
customer during the fiscal year.
    The committee commends the Department for initiating 
processes to determine the correct cash corpus thresholds for 
each working capital fund. Department of Defense Financial 
Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Volume 2B, Chapter 9, 090103, 
Cash Management Policy, is under revision to require each 
activity to determine and justify its cash requirements in 
terms of mission and management factors, such as collection and 
disbursement cycles. The Department anticipates that cash 
requirements will vary by activity and anticipated workload 
levels. The new cash target range will support a number of 
requirements including the following:
    (1) Near-term operational requirements (formerly 7 to 10 
days);
    (2) Capital investment program disbursements;
    (3) Any positive accumulating operating result budgeted for 
return to customers;
    (4) An amount of cash equal to undisbursed direct 
appropriations (lags over a 4-year period);
    (5) A commodity/market adjustment for cost changes;
    (6) Cash required for undelivered orders that will be 
delivered after the budget year;
    (7) Multiple disbursement cycles between collection cycles 
(for example, extra payroll cycle); and
    (8) Mitigation of risk/cash loss when implementing a 
business process change.
    The committee looks forward to future budget submissions 
with prices and rates set to maintain an adequate cash balance 
to absorb external pressures, thereby maintaining a steady, 
dependable rate for the customer throughout the fiscal year.

       Secure Sources of Materials Critical to National Security

    In section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), the Congress provided 
authority for the National Defense Stockpile Manager to acquire 
six materials critical to national security, two of which were 
compounds of rare earth elements: dysprosium metal and yttrium 
oxide. The committee notes that foreign suppliers, 
historically, accounted for the majority of global production 
of these materials and have implemented multiple controls on 
the production and export of dysprosium metal and yttrium 
oxide.
    Based upon research by the Department of Defense, new 
investment in the rare earth supply chain may have increased 
the availability of these materials from domestic sources. As 
the Department prepares to procure quantities of these 
materials for the Defense National Stockpile, the committee is 
concerned that market dynamics may result in these materials 
being provided by historically foreign suppliers rather than 
from secure domestic sources. The committee encourages the 
National Defense Stockpile Manager to maximize the utilization 
of sources that refine dysprosium metal and yttrium oxide in 
the United States.

       Upgrading Beryllium within the National Defense Stockpile

    The committee notes that the existing National Defense 
Stockpile (NDS) for beryllium, a strategic and critical defense 
material, is presently not in a form which is usable within the 
defense supply chain. Viable sources of beryllium are only 
found in the United States and the Russian Federation. The 
committee continues to believe that military readiness requires 
continued quick access to beryllium. The committee recognizes 
the concerted effort on the part of the Department of Defense 
and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which administers the 
NDS, to upgrade the beryllium stockpile. In its latest Annual 
Materials Plan, the DLA stated its plan to upgrade more than 17 
short tons of beryllium material. The committee urges the DLA 
to upgrade this material quickly, thereby ensuring that the 
beryllium held in the NDS is capable of quick insertion into 
the defense supply chain, potentially mitigating supply chain 
risk.
    In addition, the committee directs the Administrator of the 
National Defense Stockpile to brief the House Committee on 
Armed Services not later than September 1, 2014, on the 
progress of and future plans for the upgrade program for 
beryllium.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Military Programs


                  Section 1401--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize appropriations for Defense 
Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501 
of division D of this Act.

    Section 1402--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

    This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the level 
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

 Section 1403--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
                                  Wide

    This section would authorize appropriations for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the 
level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

                Section 1404--Defense Inspector General

    This section would authorize appropriations for the Office 
of the Inspector General at the level identified in section 
4501 of division D of this Act.

                  Section 1405--Defense Health Program

    This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense 
Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of 
division D of this Act.

                 Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile


  Section 1411--Revisions to Previously Authorized Disposals from the 
                       National Defense Stockpile

    This section would authorize revisions on limitations in 
asset sales contained in section 3303(a)(7) of the Strom 
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1999 (Public Law 105-261), as most recently amended by section 
1412(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), to increase the 
Department of Defense's stockpile commodity disposal authority 
by $50.0 million, and extend this authority from 2016 to 2019.
    This section would further authorize revisions on 
limitations in asset sales contained in section 3402(b)(5) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 
(Public Law 106-65), as most recently amended by section 1412 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81), to increase the Department of Defense's 
stockpile commodity disposal authority by $20.0 million, and 
extend this authority from 2016 to 2019.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


 Section 1421--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of 
 Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
     Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer funds from the Defense Health Program to the Joint 
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 1704 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84).

    Section 1422--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces 
                            Retirement Home

    This section would authorize $63.4 million to be 
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home during fiscal year 2015.

   TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
                         CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for 
each fiscal year to include:
    (1) A request for the appropriation of funds for ongoing 
operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan;
    (2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required in 
that fiscal year for operations; and
    (3) A detailed justification of the funds requested.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations to 
be available upon enactment of this Act to support overseas 
contingency operations.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


             National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment

    The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations 
contained no funding for National Guard and Reserve Component 
Equipment account. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee notes 
that the base budget request contained $3.3 billion for 
National Guard and Reserve Component equipment.
    The specific amount of resources, including equipment, 
needed to adequately sustain the National Guard and Reserve 
Component's operational reserve status remains a concern 
because of the fiscal environment, especially given the dual 
mission responsibility of the National Guard and Reserve 
Components, particularly the National Guard. The committee 
recognizes the National Guard and Reserve Components continue 
to report significant equipment shortages in modernized 
equipment.
    The committee believes additional funds would help 
eliminate identified shortfalls in the areas of critical dual-
use equipment. The committee expects these funds to be used for 
the purposes of, but not limited to, the procurement of: 
aircraft, missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, 
tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical 
radios to include single channel ground and airborne radio 
systems, non-system training devices, logistics automation 
systems, remote weapon stations, chemical/biological protective 
shelters, internal and external fuel tanks for rotorcraft, and 
other critical dual-use procurement items for the National 
Guard and Reserve Components.
    The committee recommends additional funding for a National 
Guard and Reserve Component equipment account within the 
Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. The committee 
recommends $3.3 billion, the full amount of the base budget 
request, for National Guard and Reserve equipment.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


         Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations


                         Section 1501--Purpose

    This section would establish this title and make 
authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of 
this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts 
otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional 
costs due to overseas contingency operations.

                       Section 1502--Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $6.2 billion for 
procurement programs.

                Section 1503--Operation and Maintenance

    This section would authorize an additional $64.0 billion 
for operation and maintenance programs, and $635.0 million for 
maintaining, operating, and upgrading A-10 aircraft.

                    Section 1504--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize an additional $7.1 billion for 
military personnel.

                   Section 1505--Other Appropriations

    This section would authorize an additional $1.5 billion for 
the Defense Health Program, Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
Activities, Defense-wide, and National Guard and Reserve 
Equipment.

                     Subtitle B--Financial Matters


          Section 1511--Treatment as Additional Authorizations

    This section would state that amounts authorized to be 
appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.

                Section 1512--Special Transfer Authority

    This section would authorize the transfer of up to $3.0 
billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in 
this title among the accounts in this title.

          Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters


Section 1521--Continuation of Existing Limitations on the Use of Funds 
                in the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

    This section would continue the existing limitations on the 
use of funds in the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund subject to 
the conditions of section 1513 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as 
amended by section 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), 
through fiscal year 2015.

   Section 1522--Use of and Transfer of Funds from Joint Improvised 
                      Explosive Device Defeat Fund

    This section would authorize various transfer authorities, 
reporting requirements, and other associated activities for the 
Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fund, as managed 
by the Joint IED Defeat organization.

     TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS


                                OVERVIEW

    The committee has determined it necessary to reorganize 
title XVI to combine missile defense, nuclear forces, space, 
cyberspace, and intelligence sections within one title. These 
new subtitles have been rearranged from positions from past 
national defense authorization acts to now reflect the current 
title XVI.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


          Additional Homeland Missile Defense Interceptor Site

    The committee notes that section 239 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) provided for certain briefings on the development of an 
additional homeland defense interceptor site and section 4201 
of that Act provided $20.0 million for planning activities 
related to such site.
    The committee is also aware that on February 26, 2014, the 
Commander, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) testified that:
    ''[T]he third site, if you built it, would give us better 
weapons access, it'd give us increased inventory and increased 
battle space with regards to a threat coming from the direction 
of the Middle East. So those are just facts. And that's what it 
would give to the combatant commander--and that's me--the one 
that's accountable for the defense of the homeland from the 
ICBM threats . . . [Iran has] not stopped aspirational goals 
towards ICBM technologies. They have successfully put a 
missile--space vehicle into orbit, and that demonstrates the 
types of technologies that you need to develop an ICBM . . . I 
think it was very prudent to direct us--or the Missile Defense 
Agency--to do a site selection.''
    The committee acknowledges the assessment of the Commander 
of NORTHCOM and therefore directs the Director, Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA), in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Northern 
Command, to provide the House Committee on Armed Services 
briefings not less than every 90 days through the end of fiscal 
year 2015, and starting not later than September 15, 2014, on 
the following:
    (1) Progress updating the cost estimates provided to the 
committee in March 2012 for the additional homeland missile 
defense site;
    (2) Progress updating the Facility Requirement Documents, 
such as those developed for the ground-based interceptor site 
at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and the planned site in the Republic of 
Poland, also known as the Third Site, and other planning and 
designing processes related to the construction of an 
additional homeland missile defense interceptor site; and
    (3) Any additional matters they deem useful.
    Furthermore, the committee directs the Director, MDA, in 
coordination with the Commander, U.S. NORTHCOM, not later than 
September 15, 2014, to provide the congressional defense 
committees a written and unclassified assessment of which of 
the potential sites for a homeland missile defense site under 
consideration offers the best site for the defense of the 
homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles from Iran and 
whether such site is different than the site determined by the 
Commander in his 2007/2008 homeland missile defense study (the 
2007-2008 U.S. NORTHCOM Ground-based Interceptor Study).

                            Air Force Cyber

    The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request is generally characterized by reductions in most 
mission areas except cyber. This trend is true across all the 
military services, including the Air Force. However, the 
committee believes that for the Air Force, it is particularly 
difficult to understand the breadth and depth of investment and 
focus in cyber given the dispersion of cyber manpower across 
multiple program areas and operating environments.
    The committee is concerned that disaggregating the cyber 
workforce across multiple expenditure centers and projects in 
such a manner not only makes understanding the entirety of the 
cyber investment more difficult, it generates greater risk for 
suboptimizing the cyber workforce, increased unintentional 
redundancy in tasking, and challenges in managing operational 
roles and responsibilities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force, in coordination with the Director of the National 
Security Agency, to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees, the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select 
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate by February 16, 2015, 
that captures the aggregate Air Force investment in cyber, 
laying out where the various elements of Air Force cyber are 
nested, and how those elements are integrated within the 
overall Air Force and Department of Defense cyber enterprises. 
The report should focus both on the current laydown of 
personnel as well as the envisioned end-state manning 
construct. It should also include a discussion on how the Air 
Force has constructed the various operational chains of command 
within the service and between the service elements and United 
States Cyber Command.

           Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System

    The Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System 
(DCGS-AF) is a family of existing and planned systems providing 
multi-intelligence tasking, processing, exploitation, and 
dissemination capabilities at the Joint Task Force level and 
below. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 request 
for DCGS-AF totaled $782.4 million and included over 7,600 
personnel. Resident in the Processing and Exploitation 
expenditure center, DCGS-AF has traditionally been viewed in 
that functional context.
    The committee is concerned that through the course of 
supporting combat operations over the past 12 years, DCGS-AF 
has begun to evolve beyond the intelligence processing and 
exploitation functions to include single-intelligence and even 
multi-intelligence source analysis. The committee believes this 
presents an important opportunity for the Air Force to clarify 
the operational role of the DCGS-AF enterprise, taking every 
measure to ensure full coordination between enterprise elements 
and complete deconfliction of functions, tasking, and mission 
responsibilities where possible.
    The committee is specifically concerned that initiatives 
like the DCGS-AF Analysis and Reporting Team (DART) System risk 
stepping beyond the appropriate functional boundaries for the 
system, unduly broadening the mission, and distracting the 
operational focus. However, the committee believes that the 
future Analysis and Targeting Wing must take full advantage of 
technical advances accomplished within the DCGS-AF as part of 
Air Force efforts to clarify and cement appropriate mission 
assignments across the intelligence enterprise.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense and 
intelligence committees by June 1, 2015, that describes the 
future of DCGS analytic and processing, exploitation, and 
dissemination responsibilities. The report should describe 
which intelligence functions, such as processing, exploitation, 
and analysis, should reside at the service intelligence 
centers, the Joint Intelligence and Operations Centers, and at 
DCGS-AF nodes. The report should outline a proposed Plan of 
Action and Milestone to execute the transformation to the 
stated end state, including anticipated costs and manpower 
requirements across the enterprise and a plan for satisfying 
those requirements.

             Assessment of Foreign Nuclear Weapons Programs

    As the United States embarks on a decades-long effort to 
recapitalize the nuclear deterrent, the committee believes a 
comprehensive assessment of foreign nuclear weapons programs 
would help inform decisions on policies, programs, and 
resources.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the 
Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and 
Counterintelligence and the Director of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency to submit a joint report to the 
congressional defense committees, the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence by January 31, 2015, on foreign nuclear weapons 
programs. Such report should include a comprehensive assessment 
and description of current and developmental capabilities in 
foreign countries regarding nuclear weapons and their delivery 
systems. The report should also discuss nuclear doctrine and 
employment strategy, nuclear explosive and subcritical testing, 
advanced nuclear weapon research programs, the number of 
nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and other matters as the 
Directors determine appropriate. Such report should be 
unclassified to the maximum extent consistent with the 
protection of classified information, but should also have 
classified annexes at the appropriate levels of classification.

             Biometrics for Identity and Access Management

    The committee is aware that the Joint Information 
Environment is developing a reference architecture for identity 
and access management. Currently, for enterprise applications, 
this is done through the use of passwords and common access 
cards. As the Department of Defense moves to a future 
architecture for security and identity management, the 
committee believes that the Department should look at ways to 
integrate biometrics capability into that architecture for 
improved two-factor authentication.
    Additionally, the committee believes that the Department 
should examine the possibility of implementing enterprise-scale 
biometric enrollment solutions in order to gain efficiencies 
and better secure sensitive data. As the Department has already 
transitioned from the collection of fingerprints on ink and 
paper cards to electronic fingerprints for the conduct of 
background checks, the committee believes that further 
improvements can be achieved by leveraging web-enabled 
submission technologies.

Briefing and Report on the Implementation of the Secretary of Defense's 
         Plans for Cruise Missile Defense of the United States

    The committee shares the concerns of the Commander, U.S. 
Northern Command, who testified on February 26, 2014, about the 
rising threat of cruise missile attack on the United States 
homeland and commends the Department of Defense for beginning 
to address this threat in an affordable manner. The Commander 
testified that:
    ``[W]e've been directed by the Secretary to ensure that we 
are also looking at how to provide effective defense against 
cruise missiles in a way that outpaces any threats, to include 
Russians . . . and that's a three-phased approach that's been 
approved by the Pentagon. And it starts with getting the 
national capital region right. And right now, we're going 
through a test phase where two things have been added or are 
being added to the national capital region--the stateside 
affordable radar, in conjunction with a joint elevated net 
sensor, the JLENS balloons. And what they're trying to 
accomplish is integrating that into an overall defensive plan 
that allows us to see, detect, track, warn and in the future 
hopefully engage cruise missiles that could pose a threat to 
the national capital region. Then the issue will be if the 
cruise missile threat continues to evolve, how do we then take 
and export that capability where we think we might need it to 
defend other strategically or critical infrastructure locations 
in the United States and Canada.''
    The committee supported the Secretary of Defense's plan in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66). However, the committee is concerned that 
the Secretary's plan is in danger of not being executed in only 
its second year of implementation. The committee is aware that 
the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization had 
been responsible for implementation and funding for the initial 
capability in fiscal year 2014, but that responsibility is 
shifting to a military service in fiscal year 2015. The 
committee is aware that at least two of the key programs in the 
Secretary's plan are not funded by the responsible military 
service in the first year of its responsibility for doing so.
    However, to more fully understand the impacts of the fiscal 
year 2015 budget request, the committee directs the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. Northern 
Command, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 
Services not later than June 30, 2014, explaining the impacts 
on the Secretary's cruise missile defense plan of the potential 
delays included in the fiscal year 2015 budget request and how 
the Chairman believes these potential delays can be avoided, 
including through reprogramming actions if necessary.
    The committee directs the Chairman, in consultation with 
the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, and such other persons or 
agencies he deems expedient, to submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report not later than February 1, 2015, 
that includes the following: an identification of the longer-
term coordination challenges within the Department of Defense 
and the federal government concerning other government radar 
assets that could be useful to this mission and a plan to 
ensure their availability; an identification of any air space 
challenges that may be present at a more advantageous 
geographic location for defense of the national capital region 
and a plan to address them; views of, and recommendations from, 
the North American Air Domain Awareness Surveillance (NAADAS) 
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA); and a recommendation for the 
designation of a responsible Departmental authority to 
coordinate planning for the cruise missile defense mission and 
acquisition of related military capabilities.

       Briefing on Funding Modernization of the Nuclear Deterrent

    Given the long timeframes and costs associated with 
programs to modernize the nation's nuclear deterrent, the 
committee believes it is imperative that such efforts be based 
upon sound long-term planning. The nation is embarking upon a 
decades-long effort to modernize a nuclear deterrent that last 
saw major recapitalization in the 1980s. These current and 
future efforts include life extension of nuclear warheads, 
development and procurement of new delivery systems (ballistic 
missile submarines, nuclear-capable bombers, dual-capable 
tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, and ground-based 
intercontinental ballistic missiles), modernization of nuclear 
command and control systems, and construction of new nuclear 
infrastructure.
    In a 2013 report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 
the cost of operating, sustaining, and modernizing the nuclear 
triad over the next decade at approximately $355.0 billion. 
While the Department of Defense's estimate contained in the 
reports submitted pursuant to section 1043 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) is lower, the committee notes that this report did not 
include expected costs for the new bomber or replacement 
intercontinental ballistic missiles because of uncertainty in 
these programs' direction. The committee is pleased that the 
Department plans to include rough estimates for these costs in 
its next report, and encourages the Department to make its 
assumptions clear to enable consistent comparisons between 
various cost estimates.
    The committee is aware that many of the planned nuclear 
programs are expected to enter service in the 2030s, and is 
aware of significant production and funding challenges to 
successfully execute this important recapitalization effort. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no 
later than October 31, 2014, on the Department's process for 
planning, prioritizing, and estimating costs for sustaining and 
modernizing the nuclear triad beyond the current 10-year 
reporting requirement. This briefing should include relevant 
measures to ensure that these plans are executable and cost-
effective, and discussion of the challenges associated with 
such very-long-term planning.

   Briefing on Number of B61-12 Nuclear Gravity Bombs to Be Produced

    The committee notes the value of providing a credible 
extended nuclear deterrent to U.S. allies. The committee 
recognizes that the ongoing B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) 
will produce B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs to contribute to both 
extended deterrence and the U.S. strategic deterrent. The 
committee believes the number of B61-12 bombs to be produced by 
the LEP must be appropriately sized to meet the requirements of 
extended and strategic deterrence, and should be informed by 
geopolitical developments in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere around 
the world.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, the Commander of U.S. 
European Command, the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and 
the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a briefing to 
the committee by January 15, 2015, on the analysis and 
requirements that have informed the determination of the number 
of B61-12 bombs to be produced by the LEP. This briefing should 
include analysis regarding the number required to provide a 
credible extended deterrent to U.S. allies around the world, 
the number required for forward-deployment and to be available 
for forward-deployment, the number required for the U.S. 
strategic deterrent, and a timeframe for when a final decision 
must be made regarding the total number of B61-12s to be 
produced by the LEP.

                     Briefing on Plutonium Strategy

    The committee directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons 
Council, in consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear 
Security, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 
September 15, 2014, on the costs, benefits, risks, challenges, 
opportunities, requirements, and potential impacts on other 
programs associated with pursuing a plutonium strategy that 
achieves a pit production capacity of 50 to 80 plutonium pits 
per year in 2027 as compared to a strategy that achieves such 
capacity in 2031.

          Comptroller General Assessment of U.S. Cyber Command

    The committee notes that according to the Secretary of 
Defense, cyberspace is the new terrain for warfare where 
adversaries seek to do harm to the Nation, the economy, and its 
citizens. Adversaries, such as nations, insiders, terrorists, 
criminal groups, hackers, and other individuals and 
organizations, use an array of cyber tactics that could 
threaten our nation's security. The unique nature of cyber-
based attacks can vastly enhance their reach and impact. To 
address these threats, the Department of Defense established 
U.S. Cyber Command as a sub-unified command under U.S. 
Strategic Command.
    In 2010 and 2011, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) reported that the Department's and U.S. Cyber Command's 
efforts could benefit from additional detail and clarity and 
that they had not fully defined long-term mission requirements 
and desired capabilities to guide the military services' 
efforts to recruit, train, and provide forces with appropriate 
skill sets. In 2014, GAO also reported on the Department's 
planning efforts to maintain continuity of operations in a 
degraded cyber environment.
    U.S. Cyber Command achieved full operational capability in 
October 2010, and is currently responsible for planning, 
coordinating, integrating, synchronizing, and conducting 
activities to direct the operations and defense of specified 
Department of Defense information networks, and to prepare to 
conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations, when 
directed, to enable actions in all domains and ensure U.S. and 
allied freedom of action in cyberspace while denying the same 
to our adversaries. As U.S. Cyber Command continues to develop 
and grow, it is essential that it does so as efficiently and 
effectively as possible. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2015, on the 
organization, missions, and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command 
and its operational relationship with the geographic combatant 
commands. This report should include a review of the existing 
organizational structure of the U.S. Cyber Command, including 
the extent to which:
    (1) The Department has clearly defined U.S. Cyber Command's 
mission, responsibilities, and authorities;
    (2) U.S. Cyber Command's organization, personnel, and 
structure support cyberspace operations and leverage 
relationships with the combatant commands, military services, 
and defense while minimizing potential overlap or duplication 
of effort;
    (3) U.S. Cyber Command coordinates and supports the 
operations and activities of the geographic combatant commands, 
including identifying the offensive and defensive cyber rules 
of engagement for U.S. Cyber Command and geographic combatant 
commands and conducting assessments to identify needed cyber 
capabilities; and
    (4) Effective coordination mechanisms have been established 
between U.S. Cyber Command and other Federal agencies that have 
a role in cyberspace operations.

Comptroller General Assessment on Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, 
                           and Reconnaissance

    Airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
(ISR) systems provide critical insight to the warfighter across 
the spectrum of operations from combat to peacetime. Commanders 
of the combatant commands recognize the advantages that ISR 
provides, and therefore have significant demand and 
requirements for the use of these platforms in their areas of 
operation. The military departments must balance the warfighter 
requirements and overall investments to meet a broader defense 
strategy. Addressing the appropriate level of ISR capacity and 
capability appears to be a significant and recurring challenge 
for the Department of Defense.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to assess the processes by which the 
Department determines its airborne intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance investments and balances capability and 
capacity in order to meet commanders of the combatant commands' 
critical ISR requirements. The Comptroller General should 
provide a report to the congressional defense and intelligence 
committees by February 1, 2015. The report should address the 
extent to which the Department of Defense has the necessary:
    (1) Risk and resource management structures in place to 
validate, prioritize, and address airborne ISR collection 
requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands;
    (2) Airborne ISR capabilities to meet current intelligence 
requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands;
    (3) Airborne ISR investment strategy, including the 
appropriate capability and capacity of platforms and sensors 
relative to current and anticipated intelligence requirements 
of the commanders of the combatant commands; and
    (4) Any related matters the Comptroller General finds 
appropriate.

  Comptroller General Evaluation on Department of Defense Efforts to 
          Protect Information and Systems from Insider Threats

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
implemented a number of measures, both technical and 
administrative, to try to mitigate the threat from privileged 
insiders. That process began with the unauthorized disclosures 
from Bradley Manning, but clearly gaps continue to exist that 
have been exploited by Edward Snowden. The committee remains 
concerned that the Department's efforts have not been 
comprehensive enough or implemented swiftly enough to get ahead 
of the problem. The committee is also concerned that the 
Department does not have an adequate baseline or rigorous 
metrics to assess the effectiveness or performance of the 
measures that are in place.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees by January 15, 2015, evaluating the 
Department's efforts at protecting against insider threats. 
This report should address the following issues:
    (1) To what extent has the Department assessed and 
mitigated for the threat, vulnerabilities, and consequences 
that insiders pose to Department of Defense information and 
systems the Department uses?
    (2) To what extent has the Department developed and 
implemented an insider threat detection and prevention program 
consistent with guidance and standards developed by the Insider 
Threat Task Force?
    (3) To what extent have lessons learned from prior insider 
threat incidents been incorporated into the Department's 
insider threat detection and prevention program?
    (4) Has the Department reached out to other Federal 
agencies, foreign governments, or the private sector to 
identify best practices and lessons learned with regard to 
insider threats; and to what extent have those best practices 
and lessons learned been incorporated into the Department's 
insider threat detection and prevention program?
    (5) How well has the Department been performing on the 
assessments, both self-assessments and external assessments, 
called for in Executive Order 13587; and to what extent has the 
Department developed corrective action plans to address the 
findings in a timely manner?
    (6) What additional areas need to be addressed, either by 
technical systems or additional policies?

         Comptroller General Review of Nuclear Weapons Council

    The role of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) established 
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 
(Public Law 99-661) has evolved with time and national needs. 
Today, the NWC's primary responsibilities focus on coordination 
and joint decisionmaking between the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Energy with respect to U.S. nuclear weapon 
policies, programs, schedules, and budgets.
    Over the past several years, the NWC has considered and 
approved a series of actions, programs, and plans for the 
future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program that have shortly 
thereafter been thwarted by Department of Energy resource 
constraints and differing priorities. This tension has been 
exacerbated by Department of Energy's increasing reliance on 
annual budget authority transfers from Department of Defense 
(totaling over $1.0 billion each year) to accomplish its 
nuclear modernization mission. Recent defense authorization 
bills have sought to provide the NWC greater insight into 
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration 
budget and budgeting process, but coordination and transparency 
problems remain apparent.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees by April 1, 2015, containing an assessment of the 
Nuclear Weapons Council's role, responsibilities, and 
effectiveness in coordinating Department of Defense and 
Department of Energy policies, programs, schedules, and budgets 
for developing, sustaining, and modernizing nuclear delivery 
systems, nuclear weapons, and their supporting infrastructure. 
The Comptroller General should assess: (1) the authorities and 
responsibilities of the NWC; (2) the decisionmaking processes 
and procedures of the NWC and its subordinate committees; and 
(3) the ability of the NWC to implement, oversee, and ensure 
its decisions are successfully executed. The Comptroller 
General's report should include recommendations to the 
Department of Defense and Department of Energy, or matters for 
congressional consideration, as appropriate, to improve the 
effectiveness of the NWC.

   Conventional Prompt Strike Capability Research, Development, and 
                              Acquisition

    The committee is aware that in testimony before it on April 
2, 2014, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command stated:
    ``Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) capability offers the 
opportunity to rapidly engage high-value targets without 
resorting to nuclear options. CPS could provide precision and 
responsiveness in Anti-Access Area Denial environments while 
simultaneously minimizing unintended military, political, 
environmental, economic, or cultural consequences. I support 
continuing research and development of these important 
capabilities.''
    The committee agrees. The committee recognizes the success 
of the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) test conducted 
on November 17, 2011, though it notes the failures of the 
Hypersonic Technology Vehicle tests. The committee is also 
aware of the planned flight test 2 of the AHW technology 
development system that will demonstrate operationally suitable 
ranges and performance as well as additional technologies 
needed to support continued development of this capability.
    The committee is aware that following flight test 2, the 
Department of Defense plans to examine the feasibility of 
deploying a hypersonic prompt strike weapon on a submarine 
platform. The committee believes it is prudent to undertake 
these efforts but is concerned about the budget sufficiency to 
do so. The committee is also concerned that there is no clear 
development path of an Army system. The committee believes that 
a third flight test of the AHW system could provide useful 
information to inform decisions about such a development path.
    The committee is also concerned that with the budget 
request for fiscal year 2015, and the Future Years Defense 
Program, there is not sufficient funding requested and planned 
for the transition of this technology to a military service for 
a full-scale development and acquisition program when the 
technology has reached appropriate maturity.
    The committee notes that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review 
stated that the Administration planned to deploy these 
capabilities, ``while not negatively affecting the stability of 
our nuclear relationships with Russia or China.'' The committee 
agrees with this policy. The committee also notes that it 
directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on any 
policy considerations concerning any potential ambiguity 
problems regarding the launch of a conventionally armed missile 
from submarine platforms and any potential verification 
measures that may be pursued in the Joint Explanatory Statement 
(Committee Print No.2) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The committee has not 
yet received this directed report; it expects to receive a 
detailed understanding of how the Department plans to evaluate 
and resolve these potential problems, including potential 
cooperative measures.
    The committee is also concerned that there does not appear 
to be an Army development program in the Department's plans, 
notwithstanding the fact that the only success the United 
States has seen with these technologies is the Army's AHW 
demonstrator. The committee believes it is prudent to consider 
whether a third flight test of the AHW could contribute to the 
Department's understanding of the feasibility of an Army 
development path.
    The committee therefore directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, jointly with 
the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 
2015, that includes the following: a detailed plan for the 
future of CPS, including an estimated timeline for completion 
of current research and development activities and associated 
projected cost; a determination about which additional 
strategic infrastructure technologies and enabling capabilities 
may be required to support CPS; opportunities for inter-service 
collaboration in development of common technology; 
opportunities and efforts to transition technologies developed 
under this program to current and future weapons systems; a 
date by which CPS programs will be transitioned to military 
services for full development and acquisition; an assessment of 
the utility of a third AHW flight test; an assessment of the 
key technologies that could be demonstrated through a third 
development test; and, an updated assessment of threat for 
which the military requirement for this capability was 
validated.

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Review of Missile Defense Agency 
                     Tests and Targets Efficiencies

    The committee is aware that the budget request for fiscal 
year 2015 and the Future Years Defense Program contains 
significant and meaningful efficiencies in the Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA) ballistic missile tests and targets programs. The 
committee commends the efforts of the Director, MDA to achieve 
these hundreds of millions of dollars in savings by the 
measures proposed and believes these funds can and should be 
reinvested into important modernization programs for the 
ballistic missile defense system.
    To support the Director, MDA, the committee directs the 
Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), in 
coordination with the Director, MDA, to provide a briefing to 
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 
31, 2014, detailing the views of the Director, CAPE on the 
likelihood that the proposed efficiencies in MDA's test and 
targets programs can be realized and the Director's views as to 
whether there are opportunities to achieve further efficiencies 
in fiscal year 2015 and the Future Years Defense Program.

     Defense Industrial Base Information Sharing for Cybersecurity

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense 
maintains a program of information sharing with its defense 
industrial base (DIB) known as the DIB Information Assurance/
Computer Security program. The committee is aware that this 
program has been successfully sharing classified government 
threat information with its industrial base, and has been 
expanding its network of voluntary partners of the past few 
years. The committee believes that the Department continues to 
prioritize efforts to help secure the networks and information 
systems of DIB companies, and that continued attention by 
Department leadership is needed to ensure that defense 
industrial base companies are making the maximum possible 
effort toward protecting their systems. Furthermore, the 
committee encourages the Department to recognize and account 
for participation in relevant cybersecurity information-sharing 
structures to the greatest extent possible when making 
procurement decisions.

                    Defense Intelligence Priorities

    As part of both the Department of Defense and the 
Intelligence Community (IC), the Defense Intelligence Agency 
(DIA) is dually tasked with providing intelligence collection, 
analysis, and support specifically responsive to the Department 
of Defense as well as national requirements established through 
the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF). The 
committee believes that both roles are critical, but can be 
difficult to balance. The committee also understands that 
measuring satisfaction of NIPF requirements may be easier than 
measuring the satisfaction of Department-specific requirements. 
In part, the committee believes this is due to difficulties 
with identifying Department-specific requirements in a holistic 
manner.
    Section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) requires the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a written policy governing the internal 
coordination and prioritization of intelligence priorities of 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the 
combatant commands, and the military departments to improve 
identification of the intelligence needs of the Department of 
Defense. Given this new policy, the committee directs the 
Director, DIA, to provide an assessment to the congressional 
defense and intelligence committees by October 1, 2014, of the 
following:
    (1) A specific description of how the new policy is being 
implemented in terms of driving and focusing DIA intelligence 
efforts to support the Department;
    (2) How efforts to incorporate the new policy are being 
balanced with DIA's responsibilities pursuant to the NIPF;
    (3) The extent to which any other Department of Defense or 
IC policies or guidance impact DIA's implementation of the new 
policy; and
    (4) Any recommendations to further improve the Department's 
identification of its specific requirements and DIA's ability 
to respond to such requirements.

                  Directed Energy for Missile Defense

    The committee is concerned with the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) directed energy. The 
committee is also concerned that MDA has chosen to focus the 
limited funds included in the budget request for directed 
energy on two technologies, which may not in fact be the most 
promising technologies for multiple aspects of the missile 
defense mission. While the committee supports the MDA's focus 
on directed energy applications for the missile defense sensing 
mission, it does not believe it is appropriate to focus only on 
those applications.
    The committee is aware of the progress being made by the 
U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy with testing, including field 
testing, of directed energy systems to destroy threats. The 
committee is also aware of cutting-edge work being done 
elsewhere in the Department of Defense. The committee notes 
that MDA pursued development of a megawatt class laser and had 
a successful test against a ballistic missile threat, though 
the program experienced technical challenges and delays. MDA 
has largely abandoned near-term development of its non-sensing 
directed energy efforts.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in 
cooperation with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Research and Engineering and the Director, Missile Defense 
Agency, to provide a roadmap to the House Committee on Armed 
Services not later than January 15, 2015, covering the 
development and deployment of missile defense technologies 
dealing with the destruction of threat ballistic missiles.

          E4-B and Assessments on Nuclear Command and Control

    In a January 2014 report to Congress required by the 
committee's report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the Air Force 
described the history and way ahead for sustainment of the E4-B 
fleet. The report described several abortive attempts to 
initiate a replacement program for the aging E4-B fleet, as 
well as the increasingly difficult and costly efforts to 
sustain and recapitalize E4-B systems. Plans for replacement of 
the E4-B have been delayed largely because of uncertainty in 
future concepts of operations (CONOPs) for nuclear command, 
control, and communications (NC3) National Military Command 
System (NMCS) airborne fleets. The January 2014 report 
describes several efforts underway, and scheduled for 
completion by late-summer 2014, that are examining and defining 
NC3 requirements, architectures, and CONOPs. The committee 
believes these efforts must be completed expeditiously to 
inform critical decisions regarding the nation's NC3 system, 
including potential replacement of the E4-B system.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to submit to the congressional defense 
committees by November 15, 2014, the reports resulting from the 
ongoing capabilities-based assessment of the nuclear command 
and control system and the mission area analysis of the NC3 
NMCS airborne fleet.

                         Encrypted Key Delivery

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
developing a system called the Key Management Infrastructure 
(KMI) which is designed to provide secure and interoperable 
cryptographic key generation, distribution, and management 
capabilities. When fully deployed, KMI will provide a means for 
the secure ordering, generation, production, distribution, 
management, and auditing of cryptographic products, and will 
replace the legacy Electronic Key Management System.
    The committee also understands that the National Security 
Agency, which is developing KMI, is utilizing its Commercial 
Communications Security Endorsement Program to look at 
commercial solutions that might supplement or be integrated 
into KMI. The committee encourages the Department to take 
advantage of existing solutions in the private sector in order 
to meet the encrypted key delivery requirements of the future. 
The committee believes that such solutions can be helpful in 
reducing the time, cost, and manpower used in key distribution 
and rekeying operations for current systems.

          Fielding of Global Positioning System Military Code

    The committee fully supports investments to the Global 
Positioning System (GPS) to maintain U.S. military preeminence 
in positioning, navigation, and timing. In particular, the 
Department of Defense is working to field the military code (M-
code), which is a capability designed to provide improved 
resistance to existing and emerging threats, to include 
jamming.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee noted its concern that the current schedule for GPS 
III spacecraft, Next Generation Operational Control System, and 
the user equipment is not aligned. The committee believes that 
this is still a valid concern. The committee also notes the 
requirements stated in section 913 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) requiring the Department to purchase M-code capable user 
equipment during the fiscal years after fiscal year 2017.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees by March 15, 2015, on the progress the 
Department is making in deploying an M-code capability. This 
assessment should include current and planned investments; 
whether key milestones are being met; the projected ability to 
the meet the requirements in section 913 of Public Law 111-383; 
and an identification of the challenges that GPS faces and 
possible recommendations on how to make the program more 
successful in delivering M-code capabilities.

   Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests for Trident II D5 Missiles

    In the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Navy has 
proposed, as a cost savings measure, a reduction in the number 
of Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests (FCET) for Trident II 
D5 missiles in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. While the 
committee supports the Navy's efforts to find efficiencies 
wherever possible, the committee cautions that such 
efficiencies must not come at the expense of critical 
operational testing needed to ensure the reliability of the 
nuclear deterrent. The committee expects this reduction in 
testing to be temporary and encourages the Navy to return to a 
full FCET testing schedule in fiscal year 2017.

            Geospatial Intelligence for Disadvantaged Users

    The committee is aware of the stated National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA) strategic goal to provide online, on-
demand access to geospatial-intelligence knowledge. However, in 
contrast to online products, the committee notes the importance 
of NGA's continued support to combat forces operating in 
disconnected, intermittent, and limited bandwidth operational 
environments. While current programs are addressing this 
requirement, a strategic plan for this area has yet to be 
developed for software tools.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the 
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, in coordination with 
the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer, to jointly 
provide a briefing to House Committee on Armed Services by 
December 1, 2014, on a joint plan to address the relevant 
combat forces requirements for software tools to efficiently 
and cost-effectively access national geospatial-intelligence 
data in disconnected, intermittent, and/or limited bandwidth 
environments.

             Global Positioning System Denied Environments

    The committee notes that many military assets such as 
aircraft, missiles, ground vehicles, and dismounted troops rely 
on the Global Positioning System (GPS) for accurate position 
and time information. If GPS is unavailable, such as by 
malfunction or enemy jamming action, then alternative sources 
of navigation data must be available for mission completion. 
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to review 
potential technologies to improve the military's ability to 
address this challenge.

                Global Positioning System Replenishment

    The committee is aware of the Air Force's most recent plan 
to delay the procurement and launch of Global Positioning 
System (GPS) III constellation satellites. While the committee 
is aware that the Air Force may have made some technical 
changes to enable better power management of on-orbit 
satellites, this does not affect the overall constellation 
fragility as characterized by factors such as satellite age and 
technical state of internal redundancy or lack thereof. The 
committee is concerned with the revised Air Force plan and has 
not seen any detailed analysis to support the significant 
changes to the schedule.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees, by November 1, 2014, on the Global Positioning 
System satellite constellation and replenishment plan. The GPS 
plan should address the following:
    (1) Current satellite and launch vehicle acquisition 
schedule;
    (2) Cost advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a 
satellite and launch vehicle acquisition schedule as planned in 
the fiscal year 2014 President's budget, as compared to the 
current schedule;
    (3) Age, design life, and technical state of all on-orbit 
assets;
    (4) Calculated functional availability as identified with 
planned launches;
    (5) Risk assessment of not meeting the required functional 
availability;
    (6) Options to lower the risk assessment, to include faster 
replenishment of satellites;
    (7) National security impact if the necessary capability is 
not provided; and
    (8) Risks of further schedule delays to the planned 
satellite and launch schedule.

                 High Capacity Satellite Communications

    The committee is aware of the growing satellite 
communications needs of the Department of Defense. According to 
the fiscal year 2013 report from the Defense Business Board 
(DBB) titled, ``Taking Advantage of Opportunities for 
Commercial Satellite Communications Services,'' the DBB states, 
``as the demand for service increases in the future, the cost 
of communications satellite services purchased by Defense 
Information Systems Agency is projected to grow to $3B-$5B over 
the next 15 years.''
    The committee believes that the use of modern technologies, 
such as high capacity communications satellites, may provide 
cost-effective bandwidth options to meet the Department's 
growing communications requirements. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer to 
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not 
later than October 15, 2014, on the potential use of modern 
technologies, such as high capacity communications satellites, 
to address the Department's requirements, and whether existing 
satellite communications acquisition processes and authorities 
are conducive to acquiring such technologies.

         Human Intelligence Training Joint Center of Excellence

    The committee is aware of the Human Intelligence Training 
Joint Center of Excellence at Fort Huachuca. The committee 
supports this joint activity to help reduce costs, foster 
better inter-service relationships, and improve the quality of 
training across the services.
    The committee recommends continued funding of this program 
to improve interoperability and increased efficiency across the 
Department of Defense.

            Information Assurance Training and Certification

    The committee commends the Department of Defense for its 
ongoing efforts related to providing certifications to 
personnel responsible for Information Assurance (IA) activities 
pursuant to Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 8570, which 
establishes the policy and assigns the responsibilities for 
Department IA training, certification, and workforce 
management. Furthermore, the committee is aware that the 
Department may be looking at making adjustments to this policy 
to update it with current considerations related to cyber 
training standards that are in development. The committee 
believes that as this policy evolves, it should leverage the 
successes of DODD 8570 as the foundation for any future policy.
    As the Department evolves to address its future cyber and 
IA workforce training needs, the committee also understands the 
importance of testing to verify skills, which raises the 
effectiveness of information technology and cyber professionals 
and can help identify gaps in training. The committee therefore 
encourages the Department to make testing which leads to 
certifications available for trainees, as needed, in order to 
improve and continuously evaluate the cyber and IA workforce.

    Inspector General Review of the Activities Supporting the Joint 
                        Information Environment

    The committee has been monitoring progress on the 
Department of Defense's Joint Information Environment (JIE) for 
several years. The committee is aware that the Department does 
not consider JIE to be a program of record, but is a 
coordinating framework for other programs of record in the 
Department. The committee is concerned that without a strong 
architectural foundation, many acquisition decisions are being 
made by the military services and Department of Defense 
agencies without sufficient planning and rigor to ensure that 
there is transparency and competition in the process. The 
committee is aware of at least one instance in which the Air 
Force, despite a court ruling, failed to adhere to necessary 
contracting and Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements. 
The committee believes that the current process for contracting 
components of the JIE lends itself to an over-reliance on sole-
source or brand-names contracts, or other decisions made for 
expediency over competition.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense to review Department of Defense 
noncompetitive information technology contracts to determine 
whether they were properly justified as sole source, and to 
provide a briefing on the results of the review to the 
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by 
March 1, 2015. The review should look at a sample of 
noncompetitive information technology contracts in fiscal years 
2013-14, and review of these contracts should determine whether 
the Department is overly reliant on sole-source, brand-name or 
other contract types that bypass competition requirements.

        Investments for Joint Information Environment Activities

    As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee has been 
monitoring progress on the Department of Defense's Joint 
Information Environment (JIE) for several years. The committee 
is aware JIE is an ambitious initiative to consolidate its 
information infrastructure, but is considered a coordinating 
framework for other programs of record in the Department and 
not a program of record itself. However, the committee 
recognizes that many existing acquisition programs influence, 
or are influenced by, the architectural framework being 
developed by the Department of Defense, in close coordination 
with each of the military services and defense agencies.
    The committee is concerned, however, that the Department 
cannot readily indicate which programs are affected by the 
standards and processes being developed for JIE. The committee 
believes that JIE cannot be effective if the Department does 
not understand the span of all programs falling under the 
rubric of JIE, which will effect resourcing, development, 
manpower, testing, and evaluation. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Chief Information Officer of the Department of 
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 1, 2015, that identifies all of the major 
funded activities within each of the military services and 
defense agencies that currently contribute to JIE, as well as 
the funding across the Future Years Defense Program, and an 
integrated master schedule with major milestones for all of the 
indicated programs.

         Kestrel Eye Joint Capability Technology Demonstration

    The committee fully supports the U.S. Army Space and 
Missile Defense Command program called Kestrel Eye. Kestrel Eye 
is a Joint Capability Technology Demonstration of a 
nanosatellite-class imagery satellite that is designed for 
tactical ground forces. The satellite will provide the 
warfighter, in the field, a capability to directly task and 
receive operational data from a space-based collection system. 
The imagery intelligence will support rapid situational 
awareness.
    The committee is aware that this is a technology 
demonstration in development and has not launched into orbit 
yet. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to find 
a suitable space launch opportunity to enable the Army to 
complete a military utility assessment to evaluate the 
operational value of this capability.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in 
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, 
within 180 days of initial operating capability, on the 
military utility assessment of Kestrel Eye.

      Long Range Discriminating Radar for Homeland Missile Defense

    Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), directed the Director, 
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to deploy a long-range 
discriminating radar (LRDR) against long-range ballistic 
missile threats from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea 
and authorized $30.0 million for that purpose.
    In the budget request for fiscal year 2015, $79.5 million 
was also requested for this purpose. As the MDA's fiscal year 
2015 budget overview states, ``the new LRDR is a mid-course 
tracking radar that will provide persistent sensor coverage and 
improve discrimination capabilities against threats to the 
homeland from the Pacific theater. This new radar also will 
give the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar more geographic 
deployment flexibility for contingency and test use.''
    The committee recalls that section 235 of Public Law 113-66 
also requires a plan be developed for such contingency 
deployment, including on the East Coast of the United States 
against the potential long-range ballistic missile threat from 
the Islamic Republic of Iran. The committee looks forward to 
receiving this report in June 2014.
    The committee supports the LRDR approach and intends to 
provide careful oversight over the technology and site 
selection processes for what the Future Years Defense Program 
indicates will be a nearly $1.0 billion program.
    The committee is aware that the National Academy of 
Sciences report, ``Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: 
An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase 
Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives,'' 
recommended one potential sensor architecture. The committee 
also recalls that in a study conducted by the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency in response to the committee report (H. Rept. 
112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2013, it was clear that employing current 
technology, like the ground-based radar-prototype, could be 
highly affordable and effective. The committee expects the 
Director to consider these and other options.
    The committee is also concerned that this necessary, $1 
billion investment will be borne entirely by the Missile 
Defense Agency when, it is likely that the missile defense 
mission will consume very little of the LRDR's actual 
operational employment. The committee understands that missile 
defense will, by necessity, be the priority mission; however, 
it is expected that space situational awareness and other 
applications will likely be the primary operating mode.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Air 
Force Space Command and any other appropriate United States 
government agency, to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees and the congressional intelligence 
committees prior to setting the requirements for the LRDR, and 
not later than January 1, 2015, detailing how those 
requirements will be optimized to perform missions including 
missile defense sensor coverage, space situational awareness, 
and other missions of interest to the United States. The 
committee believes that there is also the opportunity for cost-
sharing of the costs of such radar design and operation and 
expects the report coordinated by the Director among these 
agencies will include an assessment of that opportunity. The 
committee is aware that the U.S. Air Force is making 
significant investments in space situational awareness and 
believes there exists the opportunity in this nascent MDA 
acquisition effort to realize significant efficiencies for the 
American taxpayer.
    The committee further directs the Commander, U.S. Strategic 
Command, to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees not later than January 31, 2015, detailing the 
requirement for space situational awareness coverage and how 
the LRDR fits into that coverage requirement and may enable a 
change in current plans to take advantage of this added 
capability.

                   Metrics of Trust in Cybersecurity

    The committee is aware of the challenges associated with 
communication between the U.S. Government and commercial 
industry in response to cybersecurity threats. The committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to continue to research 
and develop metrics of trust in dynamic adversarial and 
cooperative networks including the military and commercial 
industry in order to promote timely and effective cybersecurity 
measures.

    Military Intelligence Program and Defense Input to the National 
                          Intelligence Program

    In addition to describing responsibilities with regard to 
the Military Intelligence Program, section 3038 of title 50, 
United States Code, describes the Secretary of Defense's 
responsibilities regarding the National Intelligence Program. 
Section 3038 requires the Secretary of Defense to ``ensure that 
the budgets of the elements of the intelligence community 
within the Department of Defense are adequate to satisfy the 
overall intelligence needs of the Department of Defense, 
including the needs of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and the commanders of the unified and specified commands 
and, wherever such elements are performing government-wide 
functions, the needs of other departments and agencies.'' 
Further, section 3038 requires the Secretary of Defense to 
``ensure that the elements of the intelligence community within 
the Department of Defense are responsive and timely with 
respect to satisfying the needs of operational military 
forces.'' The Secretary also has specific statutory authorities 
relating to individual elements of the intelligence community 
that are part of the Department of Defense.
    Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) is largely 
responsible for fulfilling these statutory responsibilities on 
behalf of the Secretary and plays a critical role in ensuring 
that the intelligence needs of the warfighter are addressed. 
Specifically, the USDI has taken the lead role in establishing 
the new policy required by section 922 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to 
govern the internal coordination and prioritization of 
intelligence priorities of the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the 
military departments to improve identification of the 
intelligence needs of the Department of Defense.
    Thus, the committee directs the USDI to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees and the congressional 
intelligence committees by October 1, 2014, that contains a 
detailed description of how the new policy regarding Department 
of Defense intelligence priorities has been integrated into 
resourcing deliberations and planning for the Military 
Intelligence Program, and how the new policy has been 
integrated into USDI's representation of the Department of 
Defense in resourcing deliberations and planning for the 
National Intelligence Program.

 Missile Defense Applications for Electro-Magnetic Rail Gun Technology

    The committee applauds the work of the Navy and the 
Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) to develop an electro-
magnetic rail gun that could be capable of use as a more 
affordable air and missile defense option. The committee is 
mindful that a significant body of work and technology 
maturation remains to be completed before a thorough evaluation 
of this technology's suitability for air and missile defense is 
possible.
    The committee is concerned that the Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) has been largely relegated to a minor, supporting role in 
the evaluation of rail gun technology thus far. The committee 
is aware that MDA has been granted significant exemptions from 
Department of Defense acquisition processes precisely to 
empower the agency to provide for the rapid development and 
fielding of cutting edge technology to defend the United 
States, its allies, and deployed forces from threat ballistic 
missiles. This exemption for MDA was reaffirmed in the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Review of 2010. The committee notes 
the value of cutting-edge and nimble development and 
acquisition to satisfy air and missile defense requirements, as 
well as the operational requirements of the combatant 
commanders, and it hopes MDA is still capable of such 
development and acquisition efforts.
    The committee is also aware of the assumption of technical 
authority over Integrated Air and Missile Defense by MDA; and 
the committee believes this is a powerful opportunity to 
synergize efforts across the Department of Defense.
    The committee has been briefed by SCO and MDA on the path 
ahead for evaluating rail gun technology for the air and 
missile defense mission, and believes that rigorous testing is 
vital to that evaluation. The committee is concerned that the 
current test schedule creates the potential for progress to 
stall in fiscal year 2016 if SCO funding ends for this test 
program and MDA has not had sufficient test data to evaluate 
the technology for development as part of the ballistic missile 
defense system and inclusion in the budget request for fiscal 
year 2016.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency, in coordination with the Director, Strategic 
Capabilities Office, to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees not later than November 15, 2014, that 
details the following:
    (1) An agreed upon series of test events to determine the 
suitability of this technology for transfer to MDA for further 
development activity, including test exit criteria that should 
be met to warrant its transition;
    (2) Funding required in fiscal year 2016 and future years 
to undertake that test activity (beyond those funds already 
provided by SCO);
    (3) Opportunities to use existing MDA test events and 
assets to evaluate features of a rail gun system; and
    (4) Opportunities to leverage other military service 
development and test activities to ensure the most cost-
effective commitment of SCO, MDA, and other Department of 
Defense resources.

                      Mobile User Objective System

    The committee supports the Department of the Navy's Mobile 
User Objective System (MUOS) space program. The committee is 
aware that MUOS will provide a critical communication 
capability for the warfighter by enabling greater mobility, 
higher data rates, and improved operational availability. Of 
the eventual five satellite constellation, there are currently 
two MUOS satellites on orbit which were launched in November 
2012 and July 2013.
    The committee is aware that MUOS has two payloads, one to 
continue the legacy narrowband communications capability and 
another with a modern adaptation of Wideband Code Division 
Multiple Access (WCDMA) cellular technology. The committee is 
concerned that the modern WCMDA payload, which represents the 
primary purpose of developing a MUOS system, is unavailable for 
use by the warfighter.
    The committee is aware that the current Navy schedule 
projects the MUOS space and ground system to be operational in 
the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, but the user terminals 
will not be available until 21 months later. The committee is 
disappointed with this lack of synchronization in delivery of 
capability to the warfighter. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 
Armed Services by December 1, 2014, on a plan to accelerate the 
fielding of the user terminals in support of the MUOS program.

                  Nuclear Detonation Detection System

    The committee is aware of the joint Department of Defense 
and Department of Energy nuclear detonation (NUDET) detection 
system. The NUDET detection system is designed to detect, 
locate, and report on nuclear detonations in the Earth's 
atmosphere or near space in near real time. The program is 
designed to support treaty monitoring, integrated tactical 
warning and attack assessment, and nuclear force management. 
The committee is aware that the funding for this program is 
split between the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Energy, which can cause challenges in program execution and 
coordination. The committee notes the importance of meeting 
NUDET detection system requirements as part of its plans for 
its space architecture, understanding the multitude of 
requirements that exist on the space architecture and the 
declining budget.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary 
of State, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 
Services by January 15, 2015, on the NUDET detection system. 
The briefing should include identification of the requirements, 
a strategic plan to address those requirements, and the cost 
and schedule of the associated activities.

                     Operationally Responsive Space

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 64857F for the 
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program.
    The committee continues to support the ORS program to 
address urgent military operational requirements for space 
support and reconstitution. Additionally, the committee is 
aware of the Air Force's plan to develop ORS-5, a space 
situational awareness operational demonstrator to address 
rapidly evolving space threats. This satellite is being funded 
with prior year appropriations and does not include funding for 
a launch vehicle. The committee is aware that this satellite is 
projected to be completed around fiscal year 2017.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $30.0 million, an 
increase of $30.0 million, in PE 64857F to continue the 
Operationally Responsive Space program and to fund a 
competitively procured launch vehicle for the ORS-5 mission.

             Plan for Improving Cyber Situational Awareness

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
embarked on an ambitious, multiyear effort to improve its 
cybersecurity posture. That process was begun in 2010 with the 
establishment of United States Cyber Command, with the 
responsibility as a sub-unified combatant command to plan, 
coordinate, integrate, synchronize, and conduct activities to 
direct the operations and defense of specified Department of 
Defense information networks. It has continued with the 
creation of a cyber mission force that will defend Department 
of Defense networks, conduct cyber operations missions to 
protect the homeland, and to support combatant commander 
requirements for cyber operations support. Even the single 
security architecture for the Joint Information Environment 
represents a change of approach that integrates security 
seamlessly into network operations.
    The committee is concerned, though, that the focus of the 
Department of fielding and training a cyber workforce has far 
outpaced the ability of that workforce to have all of the tools 
necessary to operate effectively on the network. In particular, 
the committee is concerned that the tools supporting cyber 
situational awareness do not provide a comprehensive, fused 
common operational picture. The committee believes such tools 
are vital to empower a skilled, trained and experienced 
workforce to fight the network as effectively as any land, sea, 
or air component commander.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of United 
States Cyber Command, in coordination with the Undersecretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, to 
provide a plan for improving cyber situational awareness tools 
to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015. This 
plan should include the following:
    (1) Development of a common, open cyber situational 
awareness architecture, including the capability to rapidly 
integrate new privacy and civil liberty protections into the 
architecture based on changes directed by the Secretary or the 
administration;
    (2) Identification of current tools for providing cyber 
situational awareness, as well as an assessment of gaps in 
current capabilities;
    (3) Assessment of new tools or processes that might be 
incorporated into a cyber situational awareness architecture, 
such as net flow data, host-based monitoring, anomaly 
detection, audit logs and agent-based algorithms, including 
identification of any potential issues related to current 
privacy and civil liberties protection policy;
    (4) Integration of current tools into the Joint Information 
Environment single security architecture; and
    (5) Assessment to testing resources, including funding and 
ranges, that may be necessary in the future to support 
developmental and operational testing.

              Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination

    The committee recognizes that advances in the understanding 
and application of Object Based Production and Activity Based 
Intelligence (ABI) have exposed the imperative need for making 
every ounce of collected and processed intelligence readily 
accessible to the all-source analyst community in formats that 
are consistent, shareable, and searchable. The committee is 
concerned that the military services have been largely absent 
or excluded from those discussions and working groups. As the 
services have a significant personnel investment in 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance processing, 
exploitation, and dissemination (PED), it is of critical 
importance that they remain abreast of technical advances in 
shared intelligence and analytic processes. To obtain the 
maximum possible value from nascent ABI analytic methodologies, 
the committee believes that every PED process must deliver 
accurately tagged and accessible or shareable content.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Intelligence to submit a report to the 
congressional defense and the congressional intelligence 
committees by May 1, 2015, on a proposed way ahead for 
transforming the existing Department of Defense PED enterprise. 
The report should look across all PED organizations in the 
enterprise and focus on today's single source products 
developed in largely single intelligence discipline 
environments. The report should include a plan of action and 
milestones (POA&M) laying out specific actions to be taken, by 
each intelligence disciple and each collector, to evolve or 
enhance today's PED processes and outputs to a condition that 
directly facilitates ABI analysis. In building the POA&M, the 
report should prioritize collection sources, identifying those 
that can be tackled simultaneously, and highlighting any 
obstacles that prevent the required PED maturation.

   Provision of Finished Intelligence Products on the CAPITOL NETWORK

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to 
submit a report to the congressional defense and intelligence 
committees not later than October 1, 2014, on the process and 
procedures for conveying finished intelligence products to the 
appropriate committees via the CAPITAL NETWORK (CAPNET). The 
report should specifically describe:
    (1) Any Department or Department agency-specific policies 
and procedures for identifying and approving finished 
intelligence products to be posted to CAPNET (specifically 
including the processes by which the products are reviewed or 
evaluated before posting), or for removing, supplementing or 
modifying such intelligence products;
    (2) Any policies and procedures that may exist to 
adjudicate potential disagreements about the posting or failure 
to post finished intelligence to CAPNET; and
    (3) Any changes to or deviations from existing practices, 
policies, or procedures for identifying and approving 
information to be posted to CAPNET since January 1, 2012.
    Further, as this report is being prepared but before it is 
conveyed to the committees, the committee directs the Secretary 
to provide an interim briefing to the congressional defense and 
intelligence committees on these issues.

              Remote Sensing Technology Education Programs

    The committee is aware of the importance of remote sensing 
as a discipline to support defense intelligence missions. As 
the Department of Defense increasingly focuses on operating in 
non-permissive environments, and on traditional missions like 
non-proliferation and counter-proliferation, the committee sees 
remote sensing as a critical skill set for the defense 
intelligence establishment. Additionally, with the growth of 
new techniques and increasing sophistication of remote sensing 
tools, the committee believes it is important to foster a 
robust analytical workforce for this community that can 
flexibly adapt to new missions and new technologies. The 
committee encourages the Department to leverage its science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics research and 
educational resources to find methods for establishing 
partnerships with qualified universities to increase the 
quality of remote sensing technical education in areas 
including sensor systems, phenomenology, analytical techniques, 
image processing, and collections strategies, to include a 
variety of current and future imaging modalities. The grants 
should also be aimed at increasing the number of remote sensing 
students at all university levels, including undergraduate, 
graduate, and post-graduate.

             Report and Plan for Minuteman III Sustainment

    From 2001-09, the Air Force conducted a Propulsion 
Replacement Program to remanufacture solid rocket motors for 
the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system. 
This high-production rate program extended the life of 601 
solid rocket motors an additional 20-25 years. In 2017, ongoing 
surveillance efforts will enable the Air Force to determine the 
expected service life of these remanufactured rocket motors; 
the first of which will likely age out between 2020-25. 
Concurrently, existing Minuteman III guidance electronics are 
expected to age out in the mid-2020s.
    The committee notes that the Air Force is expected to 
finish its analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the follow-on to 
the Minuteman III in July 2014. Regardless of the outcome of 
this analysis, the Air Force plans to sustain and operate the 
Minuteman III system through 2030. The committee believes a 
significant gap and misalignment exists between the Air Force's 
stated intention to sustain Minuteman III through 2030 and the 
programs required to do so. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2015, 
containing the Air Force's plan and programs to sustain the 
Minuteman III system through 2030 or beyond. Such report and 
plan should: (1) be informed by the pending AOA; (2) assess the 
feasibility, costs, and benefits of initiating a low-rate 
production program for solid rocket motors, including 
identification of preparatory actions should current rocket 
motors begin aging out in 2020; and (3) to the extent 
practicable, align guidance replacement, propulsion 
replacement, and other efforts to minimize flight testing 
expenses.

          Report on Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex

    The committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense 
Agency, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Pacific 
Command and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees not later than 
September 1, 2014, on the requirements and value of converting 
the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex at the Pacific 
Missile Range Facility from a test and evaluation center to a 
permanent facility capable of continuous operations.
    The report shall include the following:
    (1) A description of manpower requirements associated with 
staffing the facility for continuous operations.
    (2) A description of the safety mitigation strategies 
associated with permanent, continuous operations.
    (3) A description of operational impacts at the Pacific 
Missile Range Facility complex.
    (4) Anticipated operations and sustainment costs.
    (5) A description of operational benefits and impacts of 
conversion to a permanent facility.
    For the report described, the Director of the Missile 
Defense Agency shall include a consideration of the following:
    (1) Technical feasibility.
    (2) Cost, cost effectiveness, and affordability.
    (3) Schedule considerations.
    (4) Capacity to respond to changes in future threat 
evolution.

              Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons Program

    The committee continues to believe that the National 
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) nuclear weapons 
program is in the process of transitioning from a focus, in the 
past two decades, on developing new tools and science-based 
understanding of nuclear weapons to a focus on applying such 
tools and understanding to modernize the stockpile. NNSA's 
projected program plan shows that the level of effort and 
funding required to support this modernization, including life 
extension programs and the infrastructure needed to support 
them, is considerable. The committee believes that while 
continual progress in advancing science-based understanding of 
the stockpile is needed to certify the stockpile in the absence 
of nuclear explosive testing and respond to unforeseen 
challenges, the program plan may require further rebalancing 
towards engineering- and production-based efforts centered upon 
life extension programs and their supporting infrastructure.
    To better understand the appropriate balance in this 
program, the committee directs the Commander of U.S. Strategic 
Command to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees by January 31, 2015, on the appropriate balance, 
over approximately the next decade, between efforts within the 
nuclear security enterprise to advance scientific understanding 
of nuclear weapons and efforts to deliver life extension 
programs and supporting infrastructure. In particular, this 
report should assess and make recommendations regarding: (1) 
the appropriate balance in resources, funding, and personnel; 
(2) the required levels of funding and the requirements driving 
programs on science, life extensions, and infrastructure; (3) 
the certification challenges facing the nuclear weapons 
stockpile over the next decade and the scientific advances 
necessary to meet them; (4) the level of basic science research 
needed to attract, retain, and challenge world-class scientists 
for the nuclear security enterprise; and (5) such other matters 
as the Commander determines appropriate. The committee expects 
the Commander to leverage the expertise of the Commander's 
Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile Assessment Team in support 
of this effort. Subsequent to submission of the Commander's 
report, the committee expects to receive the Administrator for 
Nuclear Security's views on these matters and understand how 
the Administrator intends to follow the Commander's 
recommendations.

  Report on International Agreements Concerning Outer Space Activities

    The committee is aware that there are ongoing discussions 
related to international agreements concerning outer space 
activities. As noted in section 913 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), 
the committee wants to ensure that any agreements, nonbinding 
or otherwise, will not have any impact on the ability of the 
United States to conduct military or intelligence activities in 
outer space. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees, the Senate Select Committee 
on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence by December 1, 2014, on any agreements currently 
in discussion or being considered, the potential for impact on 
any Department of Defense or intelligence activities in outer 
space, and the significance of such impacts. Such report shall 
be in unclassified form, with a classified portion marked annex 
if necessary.
    The Secretary of State may submit additional views, and 
such additional views shall be submitted to the congressional 
defense committees and the congressional intelligence 
committees, as well as the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
House and Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. Such 
report shall be in unclassified form, with a classified 
portion-marked annex if necessary.

 Report on Reliability, Modernization and Refurbishment of the Ground-
                    based Midcourse Defense Segment

    The committee recognizes the shift in the Administration's 
missile defense policy to a priority on homeland defense as 
evidenced by the March 2013 Secretary of Defense announcement, 
made in response to an escalating intercontinental ballistic 
missile threat, to increase the ground-based interceptor (GBI) 
fleet by nearly fifty percent by 2017. The committee supports 
this position; however, there is concern that the 
Administration has not made a commensurate shift in funding for 
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to address 
long-standing issues that have manifested themselves in flight 
test failures, degraded reliability, escalating obsolescence, 
and erosion of margin of capability over the threat. The 
committee notes that the GMD system is approximately 10 years 
old and was originally designed for a 20-year service life. The 
committee supports efforts to close the gap between what it 
believes is needed as necessary investment in the GMD system 
and the proposed funding levels contained in the budget 
request.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees not later than November 1, 2014, that evaluates the 
necessary resources to maintain the GMD system in future years 
to achieve no less than standard industry practices for 
strategically important peer systems (such as Minuteman, 
Trident D5, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, and Aegis 
Standard Missile-3) for fleet upgrades, reliability confidence, 
obsolescence mitigation, and service-life assurance of 
capabilities against a threat that is growing in quantities and 
sophistication. The report should include, but not be limited 
to:
    (1) Action plans, schedule, and by-year budget required to 
improve overall GBI fleet reliability and incorporate lessons 
learned from all ground and flight test failures into the 
existing fleet and in-process assets;
    (2) Action plans, schedule, asset line-of-balance 
allocations, and by-year budget required to conduct a robust 
systems engineering approach for GBI ground testing to ensure 
confidence in system reliability, capability, and long-term 
sustainment. This should include robust GBI integration 
testing, Stockpile Reliability, Aging and Surveillance, Highly 
Accelerated Life Testing, and Highly Accelerated Stress 
Screening;
    (3) Action plans, schedule, and by-year budget required to 
modernize and improve the GMD Ground System to ensure its 
sustainability for its operational life. Areas addressed should 
include technology refresh of obsolete components and 
technologies, modernized electronics architectures to eliminate 
single point failures and improve reliability, replacement of 
Ada software with a modern supportable and sustainable 
language, and fully incorporate the improved capabilities 
planned in the Enhanced Kill Vehicle Re-design and the Long 
Range Discrimination Radar; and
    (4) By-year procurement budget requirements for various 
lot-buys for the additional 14 GBIs that the Secretary of 
Defense announced in March 2013, and include the associated 
long-lead procurement budget requirements and timeline to 
support, and impacts on the industrial base.

 Report on Satellite Positioning Ground Monitoring Stations Near U.S. 
                    Overseas Military Installations

    Not later than June 30, 2015, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), to 
provide to the congressional defense committees, the Committee 
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs of the House of Representatives, the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, a report on global navigation 
satellite system ground monitoring stations operated directly 
or indirectly by the Russian Federation located near any U.S. 
military installation overseas or located near allied military 
installation or any other installation deemed sensitive by the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State or Director of 
National Intelligence. The report shall include the name and 
location of any such stations located in geographic proximity 
to any U.S. military or sensitive installation located outside 
continental United States; an assessment of the threat posed to 
such installations; the significance of such threat; and the 
plans to mitigate the impacts of covered stations. The report 
should also cover any planned future locations of such Russian 
Federation ground monitoring stations, to the extent that the 
Secretaries or the DNI are aware. The committee understands 
from public reports, that this will be a limited number of 
sites. The Secretary shall submit such report in unclassified 
form, with a classified annex if necessary.

   Report on Strategic Submarine Command and Control in the People's 
                           Republic of China

    In its report on ``Military and Security Developments 
Involving the People's Republic of China 2013,'' the Department 
of Defense highlighted the ballistic missile submarine program 
in the People's Republic of China, stating that China's Navy 
``places a high priority on the modernization of its submarine 
force. China continues the production of JIN-class nuclear-
powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Three JIN-class 
SSBNs (Type 094) are currently operational, and up to five may 
enter service before China proceeds to its next generation SSBN 
(Type 096) over the next decade.'' In testimony before the 
committee on March 5, 2014, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command 
stated that, ``China's advance in submarine capabilities is 
significant. They possess a large and increasingly capable 
submarine force. China continues the production of ballistic 
missile submarines. The platform will carry a new missile with 
an estimated range of more than 4,000 nautical miles. This will 
give the [sic] China its first credible sea-based nuclear 
deterrent, probably before the end of 2014.''
    The committee is concerned that China's imminent deployment 
of an operational sea-based strategic deterrent is a major new 
step in China's nuclear weapon program. This step further 
increases the opacity of China's already opaque nuclear forces. 
Of particular concern, deployment of nuclear-armed SSBNs 
requires China to develop and implement new command, control, 
and communications paradigms to ensure positive control of the 
nuclear warheads by China's senior leaders. To better 
understand this new Chinese capability and its implications, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by November 1, 
2014, on the strategic and regional implications of China's 
sea-based nuclear deterrent force; China's command, control, 
and communications system for such force; the implications for 
the U.S. and its allies of the emergence of a Chinese sea-based 
nuclear force; the contribution of China's sea-based deterrent 
to China's overall nuclear doctrine and employment strategy, 
including survivable second-strike capabilities; and, U.S. and 
partner nation mitigation or response plans.

  Requirement for Plan for Use of Highly Accelerated Life Testing and 
                  Highly Accelerated Stress Screening

    On March 4, 2014, the committee received a report from the 
Director, Missile Defense Agency in response to the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, concerning highly 
accelerated life testing and highly accelerated stress 
screening (HALT/HASS) testing of Ballistic Missile Defense 
Systems and Components. The committee believes this report was 
a useful review of the potential benefits and limitations of 
employing this rigorous review system in addition to current 
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) systems. The committee agrees with 
the Director's belief that HALT/HASS testing could be useful in 
certain future MDA efforts.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives in concurrence with 
the fiscal year 2016 budget submission a plan to employ HALT/
HASS testing, as appropriate, in appropriate future MDA 
programs. The committee believes these efforts should be 
supervised in part by MDA and should be competitively awarded 
through full and open competition.

            Responses to Foreign Hypersonic Weapons Threats

    The committee is concerned that the People's Republic of 
China and other competitor nations pose an increasing challenge 
to the United States' technology edge in such emerging areas as 
hypersonic weapons. On January 9, China successfully conducted 
the first flight test of a hypersonic glide vehicle. The 
Russian Federation is also known to be pursuing research and 
development of hypersonic capabilities. In testimony before the 
committee on January 28, 2014, the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, stated that, ``[o]n 
hypersonics, this is a good example of an area of technology 
that is going to move forward whether we invest in it or not . 
. . China is doing work in this area.''
    At the same time, the committee is unaware of any 
significant efforts to prepare defenses against hypersonic 
weapons. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in 
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
December 31, 2014, that evaluates emerging hypersonic threats 
to the United States, its allies, and its deployed forces, and 
explains how the Department of Defense intends to develop and 
deploy a defensive capability to counter this emerging threat.

                Retirement of B83 Nuclear Gravity Bombs

    The committee notes the Administration's stated goal of 
retiring B83 nuclear gravity bombs in the mid-2020s, after 
confidence in the safety, security, and reliability of the B61-
12 nuclear gravity bomb is established. The committee also 
notes that, in June 2013 the President stated an intention, 
``to seek negotiated cuts with Russia,'' favoring bilateral 
negotiations rather than unilateral cuts to U.S. nuclear 
forces. On March 6, 2014, the Secretary of Defense testified 
before the committee that, ``there would be no unilateral 
actions taken by this Administration on going below the current 
levels. Those would have to all be, as we have done in every 
administration, negotiated through treaties.'' At the same 
hearing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reinforced 
this position, saying, ``any further reduction should be done 
only through negotiations, not unilaterally.''
    The committee is concerned that the proposed retirement of 
the B83 would be a unilateral action by the United States, with 
no reciprocal reductions by the Russian Federation. Both 
Congress and the Administration have made clear that further 
reductions to the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and associated 
delivery vehicles should only be made in concert with Russia 
pursuant to a treaty that is bilateral and verifiable. The 
committee expects the Administration to ensure this is the case 
prior to retirement of the B83, and that such a treaty ensures 
appropriate reciprocal reductions in the nuclear stockpile of 
Russia.

              Revision to the Integrated Master Test Plan

    The committee believes that the reliability and warfighter 
confidence in the Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense 
Segment, also called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 
segment, could be enhanced through more frequent flight and 
intercept testing.
    According to the ``Plan to Increase the Rate of Ground-
Based Midcourse Defense Flight Tests'' submitted to the 
congressional defense committees in October 2013 in accordance 
with the requirements of section 231 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), an 
increase in test cadence to three test events every 2 years 
will ``require an increase in test resources and personnel.'' 
The committee believes such resources could increase warfighter 
confidence and the reliability of the nation's operationally 
deployed homeland missile defense capability if this test 
cadence is feasible and efficient.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA), in coordination with the Director, 
Operational Test and Evaluation, to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees following the FTG-06b 
intercept test, if successful, on the benefits and risks of 
revising the Integrated Master Test Plan presently in force and 
future submissions of the plan, to achieve GMD tests at a 
frequency of not less than every nine months. The committee 
also directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to include in 
the budget request for fiscal year 2016 an illustration of the 
funding required, if appropriate, to meet this enhanced GMD 
test cadence.

           Shortfalls in Headquarters Cyber Support Personnel

    The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has 
been making great strides in establishing a robust cyber 
mission capability, including increasing the number of cyber 
operations personnel, organizing and training them to a joint 
standard, and creating the tools and doctrine for their 
employment. However, the committee is also aware that while 
these cyber mission teams are being adequately resourced, 
personnel reductions to headquarters elements for the military 
service cyber commands are becoming a serious cause of concern.
    While the Department's goal of reducing bloat in 
headquarters is laudable, and an important step in increasing 
the tooth-to-tail ratio for military forces, this is having an 
unintended but detrimental effect for cyber forces. The 
committee notes that in some cases, military service cyber 
commands headquarters personnel are double- and sometime 
triple-hatted, leading to even greater inefficiencies and 
slower response to operational needs. These headquarters forces 
are important enablers for the cyber mission forces, providing 
planning, requirements, resourcing, and exercise support that 
is vital at this early stage of development. The committee 
encourages the Department to examine its cyber personnel needs 
more comprehensively in order to ensure that the military 
service cyber commands have sufficient support enablers to keep 
pace with the expansion of operational forces.

                       Space-Based Reconnaissance

    The committee believes that the Operationally Responsive 
Space-1 (ORS-1) satellite has provided significant intelligence 
value to the U.S. Central Command and the Army's 513th Military 
Intelligence Brigade. When referring to this capability, the 
513th stated ``the ability to provide timely geospatial-
intelligence (GEOINT) response to a real world mission during 
execution cannot be matched.'' U.S. Central Command provided 
similar feedback on the operational flexibility provided by 
this space reconnaissance asset to support urgent, short-notice 
requirements.
    The committee is aware that ORS-1 is currently operating 
well beyond its design life, and there is no follow-on program 
planned. The committee would like to understand the 
requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands for 
use of space reconnaissance assets. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a 
report to the congressional defense and the congressional 
intelligence committees by January 15, 2015, on the feedback 
from each of the commanders of the combatant commands on the 
utility of space-based reconnaissance capabilities to meet 
their priority intelligence requirements and their current 
ability to utilize and control space-based reconnaissance to 
meet those requirements.

     Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Exploitation Program

    The committee is aware that there are a number of threats 
and challenges in U.S. Southern Command. The Commander of U.S. 
Southern Command stated that 132 metric tons of cocaine was 
seized under the command's counter-narcotics mission in fiscal 
year 2013. This represents over $2.5 billion drug revenue that 
would have supported transnational criminal organizations, 
cartel violence in Mexico, and the continued threat of regional 
destabilization.
    The committee is aware of new sensor technologies that may 
be able to support the Commander of Southern Command's ability 
to address these challenges. Therefore, the committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to examine the current 
state of sensor technologies that could be used to modernize 
existing systems and improve detection, tracking, targeting, 
and engagement of these irregular threats as part of the 
Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Exploitation Program.

                      Standard Missile 3 Block IB

    The committee is concerned by the reduction in funding for 
the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) program in fiscal year 2015 and 
across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). After 
demonstrating success in five of five intercepts in 2013 and 
with a Full Rate Production decision planned for fall 2014, the 
Department now has reduced programmed quantities each year to 
fewer than were funded in fiscal year 2014 in Low Rate Initial 
Production. The committee believes such a reduction injects 
inefficiency into the production line and that inefficiency may 
unnecessarily increase the per unit cost of these interceptors.
    At the same time, the committee is not aware of any 
diminishment in requirements by the combatant commanders for 
these interceptors. The committee supports the funding 
requested in the budget submission for Advanced Procurement to 
support long-lead time requirements for these missiles. The 
committee also supports the likely request in the fiscal year 
2016 budget request for multi-year procurement authority for 
these missile interceptors. The committee believes that a 
successful negotiation between the Missile Defense Agency and 
its contractors could drive down the per unit cost of these 
interceptors and increase the available quantities to the 
warfighter.
    The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency 
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 
not later than October 1, 2014, on the sufficiency of current 
and programmed inventory of SM-3 missiles to meet combatant 
commander requirements, the number of Requests for Forces 
received from combatant commanders in 2012-13 for SM-3 
interceptors, and the shortfall in interceptors in each year of 
the FYDP.

                          Targeting Enterprise

    The committee recognizes the importance of geospatial 
intelligence (GEOINT) support to military operations. The 
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) defines GEOINT as 
the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial 
information that describes, assesses and visually depicts 
physical features and geographically referenced activities on 
the Earth. An important aspect of GEOINT operations is the 
target material provided to support the common operational 
picture, mission planning, precision coordinate generation, and 
other analytical products. The committee believes that the 
targeting mission is of critical importance, and the current 
threat environment will create challenges and necessitate the 
need for further review of the methods to accomplish this 
mission.
    Therefore, the committee directs that the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Director, 
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, to provide a briefing 
to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
Representatives and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the House of Representatives by May 1, 2015, on 
the state of the targeting enterprise. The briefing should 
include: an assessment of the current GEOINT targeting 
capabilities; identification of targeteer training as well as 
the current and projected number of targeteers across the 
Defense Intelligence Enterprise, including NGA; and an analysis 
of opportunities for improvement within the defense 
intelligence community.

  U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and Operations Center

    The U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and 
Operations Center (JIOC-TRANS) recently executed a highly 
successful proof of concept associated with a new 
organizational construct titled the Transportation Intelligence 
Center (TIC). While the committee supports the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff delegation of authority to the TIC to 
allow full exercise of appropriate intelligence coordination 
activities as demonstrated in the proof of concept, the 
committee requires additional information regarding why it is 
necessary to engender a new organizational construct to achieve 
the desired end state, particularly when manned with the same 
personnel as the existing JIOC.
    Therefore, the committee directs that the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the Director, 
Defense Intelligence Agency, to provide a report to the 
congressional defense and the congressional intelligence 
committees by February 16, 2015, detailing the authorities 
delegated to the TIC as part of the proof of concept and 
presenting an evaluation of any obstacles to delegating those 
same authorities directly to the Commander, JIOC-TRANS. The 
report should identify any opportunities to apply the same 
lessons and delegations across the other functional JIOCS (e.g. 
U.S. Strategic Command JIOC, U.S. Cyber Command JIOC, and U.S. 
Special Operations Command JIOC) to achieve improved 
operational intelligence efficiency and effectiveness. Finally, 
the report should explore the potential for such initiatives to 
allow more efficient utilization of JIOC or Intelligence 
Community manning.

 University Affiliated Research Centers for the Missile Defense Agency

    The committee believes the missile defense mission is 
crucial to the protection of the homeland as well as allies and 
deployed forces, especially as the enemy threat increases in 
size and complexity. Yet, both internal and external 
evaluations and assessments have indicated that the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) needs to make significant technical 
advancements to create Ballistic Missile Defense System 
performance that is more reliable and affordable.
    The committee is aware that many agencies, including 
defense agencies, have found that University Affiliated 
Research Centers (UARC) have been useful for their core 
research and development capabilities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile 
Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services not 
later than December 1, 2014, on whether expanding use of UARCs 
is appropriate and useful to the Missile Defense Agency, and if 
so, in what specific mission or technological areas, the 
prospective costs of such cooperation (including the 
safeguarding of unclassified technical information and 
classified information), and a plan for relevant universities 
to undertake a pilot UARC partnership, including identification 
of requirements for qualification to participate, and the 
completion by MDA of a public survey of university capabilities 
before entering into any UARC agreement.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                      Subtitle A--Space Activities


 Section 1601--Department of Defense Space Security and Defense Program

    This section would state the sense of Congress that 
critical U.S. space systems face a growing foreign threat, that 
both the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation 
are developing capabilities to disrupt the use of space by the 
United States during a conflict, and that a fully-developed, 
multi-faceted approach is needed to deter and defeat any 
adversary's acts of aggression in outer space.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees not later than 
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that 
assesses the ability of the Department of Defense to deter and 
defeat any adversary's act of aggression in outer space.
    In addition, this section would direct the Secretary of 
Defense, acting through the Office of Net Assessment, to 
conduct a study and provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees not later than one year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act of potential alternate defense and 
deterrent strategies in response to the existing and projected 
counterspace capabilities of China and Russia.

      Section 1602--Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Notification

    This section would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to 
provide certain congressional committees with notification of 
each change to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) 
acquisition plan and schedule as compared to the plan and 
schedule included in the budget submitted by the President for 
fiscal year 2015. The notification would include an 
identification of the change, a national security rationale for 
the change, the impact of the change on the EELV block buy 
contract, the impact of the change on the opportunities for 
competition for certified EELV launch providers, and the costs 
or savings of the change. The notification requirement would 
apply to fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017.

 Section 1603--Satellite Communications Responsibilities of Executive 
                            Agent for Space

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
revise Department of Defense directives and guidance for the 
Department of Defense Executive Agent (EA) for Space, with 
respect to the development of space strategies, architectures 
and programs for satellite communications. This section would 
require the EA to conduct strategic planning to ensure these 
strategies align with Department requirements. In addition, it 
would require the EA to coordinate with the necessary offices 
within the Department of Defense in order to eliminate 
duplication of efforts, maximize the effectiveness of efforts, 
and to optimize acquisition effectiveness and efficiency for 
military and commercial satellite communications. Finally, this 
section would direct the EA to coordinate with the Chairman of 
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to develop a process 
to identify current and projected satellite communications 
requirements for the Department.

         Section 1604--Liquid Rocket Engine Development Program

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense should develop a next-generation liquid 
rocket engine that is made in the United States, meets the 
requirements of the national security space community, is 
developed by not later than 2019, is developed using full and 
open competition, and is available for purchase by all space 
launch providers of the United States.
    This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a next-generation liquid rocket engine that enables the 
effective, efficient, and expedient transition from the use of 
non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative for 
national security space launches. Of the funds authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act, $220.0 million would be available for 
the Secretary of Defense to develop a next-generation liquid 
rocket engine. The Secretary would be required to coordinate 
with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, to the extent practicable, to ensure that the 
rocket engine developed meets objectives that are common to 
both the national security space community and the civil space 
program of the United States.
    The Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, 
would be directed to deliver a report with a plan to carry out 
the development of the rocket engine, including an analysis of 
the benefits of using public-private partnerships, the 
estimated development costs, and identification of the 
requirements of the program to develop such rocket engine.

  Section 1605--Pilot Program for Acquisition of Commercial Satellite 
                         Communication Services

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
develop and execute a pilot program to examine the feasibility 
of expanding the use of working capital funds to acquire 
commercial satellite communications services to meet Department 
of Defense requirements. This program would terminate on 
October 1, 2020. In addition, this section would limit the use 
of any funds authorized for the Department's acquisition of 
commercial satellite communications services to not more than 
$50.0 million per year for the pilot program execution, and 
only for fiscal years 2015-20. This section would also limit 
the authorities of the Secretary of Defense in the execution of 
the pilot program by prohibiting the use of the authorities 
granted in sections 2208(k) and 2210(b) of title 10, United 
States Code. Finally, this section would define goals for the 
execution of the pilot program, as well as reporting 
requirements for the program. This section does not constitute 
authority for multi-year procurement of commercial satellite 
services.

  Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities


 Section 1611--Assessment and Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
     Intelligence Activities and Programs of United States Special 
            Operations Command and Special Operations Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting 
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low 
Intensity Conflict, and the Director of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, to submit an assessment to the appropriate 
congressional committees on the intelligence activities and 
programs of the U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Special 
Operations Command. This section would also limit 50 percent of 
the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or 
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 of U.S. Special 
Operations Command Major Force Program-11 procurement, defense-
wide, and research, development, testing, and evaluation, 
defense-wide, until such assessment is received. Further 
discussion of this provision is contained in the classified 
annex to this report.

 Section 1612--Annual Briefing on the Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
         Reconnaissance Requirements of the Combatant Commands

    This section would direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff to provide a briefing to the congressional defense 
committees and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the Senate on the intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance requirements, by specific intelligence 
capability type, of each of the combatant commands; for the 
year preceding the year in which the briefing is provided, the 
satisfaction rate of each of the combatant commands with the 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements, by 
specific intelligence capability type, of such combatant 
command; and a risk analysis identifying the critical gaps and 
shortfalls in such requirements in relation to such 
satisfaction rate.
    Additionally, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence would be required to provide a briefing to the 
congressional defense committees and the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and 
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate on short-
term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to address the 
critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
requirements of the combatant commands. The briefings should 
address the role of government and commercial systems, and the 
methods to meeting the requirements of the combatant commands.
    These briefings would be due with the budget submission 
each year, from fiscal year 2016-20.

Section 1613--One-Year Extension of Report on Imagery Intelligence and 
 Geospatial Information Support Provided to Regional Organizations and 
                           Security Alliances

    This section would extend the existing reporting 
requirement by 1 year, regarding sharing of imagery 
intelligence and geospatial information to regional 
organizations and security alliances.

Section 1614--Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Executive 
                                 Agent

    This section would establish an executive agent for the 
Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP) 
program. The executive agent shall report directly to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and shall be responsible 
for working with the combatant commands, military services, and 
intelligence community to develop methods to increase 
warfighter effectiveness through the exploitation of national 
capabilities and to promote cross-domain integration of such 
capabilities into military operations, training, intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance activities.
    This section would also require the TENCAP executive agent 
to provide an annual briefing to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the 
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
Representatives for the fiscal years 2016-20 on the 
investments, activities, challenges, and opportunities in 
carrying out the TENCAP program.

           Section 1615--Air Force Intelligence Organization

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center provides 
indispensable intelligence support, and should remain 
organizationally aligned to the Headquarters Air Staff with 
reporting through the Vice Chief of Staff. In addition, this 
section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit 
to the congressional defense committees and the congressional 
intelligence committees a strategic plan for the intelligence 
organization of the Air Force, which includes maintaining the 
National Air and Space Intelligence Center alignment to the 
Headquarters Air Staff.

      Section 1616--Prohibition on National Intelligence Program 
                             Consolidation

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
using any of the funds authorized to be appropriated or 
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense during 
the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 
and ending on December 31, 2015, to execute: the separation of 
the portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as 
part of the National Intelligence Program from the rest of the 
Department of Defense budget; the consolidation of the portion 
of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the 
National Intelligence Program within the Department of Defense 
budget; or the establishment of a new appropriations account or 
appropriations account structure for such funds.

                 Subtitle C--Cyberspace-Related Matters


   Section 1621--Executive Agency for Cyber Test and Training Ranges

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish an executive agent to coordinate and oversee the 
management of the various cyber test and training ranges being 
developed and deployed by the Department of Defense.
    The committee is aware that a number of cyber ranges 
currently exist, but the Department's Test and Evaluation 
Strategic Plan has identified a number of capability gaps that 
need to be addressed in order to provide sufficient and 
adequate cyber test and training. Though there has been 
significant growth of cyber personnel to fulfill critical 
defensive and offensive missions for the Department, the 
capacity for training in a realistic environment has not kept 
pace. The committee is concerned that those challenges have not 
been addressed and that the Department is unable to come to 
resolution on how best to provide adequate management and 
support for such capabilities. The committee believes that 
designation of an executive agent for cyber test and training 
ranges will be an important step in managing the current range 
resources, as well as provide discipline to prevent rampant 
proliferation of duplicative capabilities.

                       Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces


 Section 1631--Preparation of Annual Budget Request Regarding Nuclear 
                                Weapons

    This section would amend section 179 of title 10, United 
States Code, and add a new requirement regarding annual 
transfers to the Department of Energy of Department of Defense 
budget authority. Prior to making such transfers, the Secretary 
of Defense must establish a memorandum of agreement with the 
Secretary of Energy as to how the funds will be obligated and 
expended within the Weapons Activities budget of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The committee believes 
that these are Department of Defense funds and it must be 
assured as to how they will be used by the Department of Energy 
if the transfers are to continue.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide an annual certification to the congressional defense 
committees that includes detailed assessments from the Nuclear 
Weapons Council, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command regarding the 
implementation by the NNSA of any agreements and decisions of 
the Council.

 Section 1632--Independent Review of the Personnel Reliability Program 
 of the Department of Defense and the Human Reliability Program of the 
                          Department of Energy

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Energy to jointly seek to enter into a contract 
with a federally funded research and development center to 
conduct an independent review of the Personnel Reliability 
Program (PRP) of the Department of Defense and the Human 
Reliability Program (HRP) of the Department of Energy and 
submit the report of this independent review to the 
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2015. Such 
review would be required to examine the costs and benefits of 
each program; examples of successes and failures for each 
program; the reporting and administrative requirements of each 
program; the authorities and responsibilities of commanders and 
managers in each program; guidance for when certain positions 
must be included in each program; recommendations for making 
the programs more effective, more efficient, and, to the extent 
appropriate, more consistent across the departments; and such 
other matters as the Secretaries determine appropriate.
    Reviewing the results of investigations initiated by the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy in the wake 
of security and personal integrity failures in their respective 
nuclear enterprises, the committee believes that the programs 
administered by each department to ensure the reliability and 
fitness of personnel for nuclear-related duties must be 
modernized to be more effective and more efficient. The 
Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) of the Department of 
Defense and the Human Reliability Program (HRP) of the 
Department of Energy are key programs for mitigating threats 
from insiders and for identifying and mitigating problems with 
nuclear workers before it affects their duties. Concerns about 
PRP and HRP have been raised in several studies over the past 
decade, but until recently little action has been taken. The 
committee commends the Air Force for its current review of its 
PRP and encourages its effort to take carefully considered 
actions to improve the program. The committee believes the 
entire nuclear enterprise would benefit from a broad-based, 
independent review of PRP and HRP.
    The committee believes sustained attention at the senior-
most levels is necessary to overcome the leadership and 
integrity problems revealed within the Air Force and the Navy 
nuclear enterprise in the past year. The committee notes that 
various reviews and investigations are ongoing and will 
continue close oversight of the recommended reforms and their 
implementation.

    Section 1633--Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Secondary Requirement

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Commander, 
U.S. Strategic Command, to assess the annual nuclear weapon 
secondary production requirement needed to sustain a safe, 
secure, reliable, and effective nuclear deterrent. The 
Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report on 
this assessment to the congressional defense committees within 
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This 
report would be in unclassified form, with a classified annex 
if necessary, and would be required to include an explanation 
of the rationale and assumptions that led to the current 50-to-
80 per year secondary production requirement, including the 
factors considered in determining such requirement, and an 
analysis of whether there are any changes to the 50-to-80 per 
year secondary production requirement, including the reasons 
for any such changes. The report would also be required to 
include a description of how the following is affected by or 
related to the secondary production requirement:
    (1) The demands of stockpile modernization, including the 
schedule for life extension programs;
    (2) The requirement for a responsive infrastructure, 
including the ability to hedge against technical failure and 
geopolitical risk; and
    (3) The number of secondaries held in reserve or the 
inactive stockpile, and the likelihood such secondaries may be 
reused.
    Finally, the report would be required to include a proposed 
timeframe for achieving the annual secondary production 
requirement.

                Section 1634--Retention of Missile Silos

    This section would express the sense of Congress that 
recent authorization and appropriations acts enacted by 
Congress and signed by the President have promulgated a 
national policy that it is in the national security interests 
of the United States to retain the maximum number of land-based 
strategic missile silos and their associated infrastructure to 
ensure that billions of dollars in prior taxpayer investments 
for such silos and infrastructure are not lost through 
precipitous actions which may be budget-driven, cyclical, and 
not in the long-term strategic interests of the United States.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
preserve each intercontinental ballistic missile silo that 
contains a deployed missile as of the date of the enactment of 
this Act in, at minimum, a warm status that enables such silo 
to remain a fully functioning element of the interconnected and 
redundant command and control system of the missile field and 
be made fully operational with a deployed missile. This 
requirement to preserve silos in a warm status would terminate 
on February 5, 2021.

         Section 1635--Certification on Nuclear Force Structure

    This section would require that, not later than 90 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander, U.S. Strategic 
Command, should jointly certify that the plan for 
implementation of the New START Treaty announced on April 8, 
2014, will enable the United States to meet its obligations 
under such treaty in a manner that ensures the nuclear forces 
of the United States are capable, survivable, and balanced; and 
maintain strategic stability, deterrence and extended 
deterrence, and allied assurance.

                  Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs


 Section 1641--Theater Air and Missile Defense of Allies of the United 
                                 States

    This section would state the policy of the United States 
that available short-range air and missile defense systems and 
terminal missile defense systems of the United States with 
operational missiles be rotationally deployed to central and 
eastern European allies, pursuant to agreements with those 
allies, as appropriate.
    This section would also require that the Secretary of 
Defense ensure the operational availability of the Aegis Ashore 
system site in Poland not later than December 31, 2016, 
pursuant to an agreement between the United States and the 
Government of Poland. Additionally, this section would require 
that, not later than December 31, 2014, the Secretary of 
Defense, pursuant to an agreement between the United States and 
the government of Poland, deploy a short-range air and missile 
defense capability or terminal missile defense capability, or 
both, and the personnel required to operate and maintain such a 
system. Further, the Secretary of Defense would be required to 
notify the appropriate congressional committees by not later 
than 60 days after the date on which a member of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization makes a request of the Secretary 
that they host such a system.

   Section 1642--Sense of Congress on Procurement and Deployment of 
         Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle

    This section would state the sense of the Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense should not procure an additional 
capability enhancement II exoatmospheric kill vehicle for 
deployment until after the date on which a successful intercept 
flight test of the capability enhancement II ground-based 
interceptor has occurred, unless such procurement is for test 
assets or to maintain a warm line for the industrial base.

   TITLE XVII--DEFENSE AUDIT ADVISORY PANEL ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                              AUDITABILITY

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Section 1701--Findings and Purposes

    This section would discuss the findings of Congress leading 
up to the establishment of an advisory panel on Department of 
Defense audit readiness. In addition, this section would 
discuss the purpose of the panel: to actively monitor the 
Department of Defense's audit readiness and audit work and to 
report on problems that need to be resolved with the intention 
to shed light on the best, most efficient path forward to meet 
the 2017 and 2019 deadlines relating to auditability.

Section 1702--Establishment of Advisory Panel on Department of Defense 
                            Audit Readiness

    This section would establish the advisory panel on 
Department of Defense audit readiness, describe the process for 
the selection of members to the panel, identify the period of 
appointment, and describe meeting requirements of the panel.

               Section 1703--Duties of the Advisory Panel

    This section would define the duties of the advisory panel. 
The panel would identify, review, and evaluate the work of the 
Department of Defense regarding auditability. The panel would 
submit to congressional defense committees semi-annual reports 
on the findings and recommendations of the panel.

               Section 1704--Powers of the Advisory Panel

    The section would provide the authority for the advisory 
panel to hold hearings and receive information directly from 
the Department of Defense.

             Section 1705--Advisory Panel Personnel Matters

    This section would require members of the advisory panel to 
serve without compensation for such service. This section would 
also provide authority for travel expenses and staff to support 
the advisory panel.

            Section 1706--Termination of the Advisory Panel

    This section would terminate the advisory panel on April 
30, 2019.

            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

                                PURPOSE

    Division B provides military construction, family housing, 
and related authorities in support of the military departments 
during fiscal year 2015. As recommended by the committee, 
division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$6,532,970,000 for construction in support of the active 
forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for 
fiscal year 2015.

           MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

    The Department of Defense requested $5,096,827,000 for 
military construction, $270,085,000 for Base Closure and 
Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,190,535,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends 
authorization of $5,276,927,000 for military construction, 
$270,085,000 for BRAC activities, and $1,190,535,000 for family 
housing in fiscal year 2015.

                       Section 2001--Short Title

    This section would cite division B of this Act as the 
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015.''

 Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be 
                            Specified by Law

    This section would ensure that the authorizations provided 
in titles XXI through XXVII of this Act shall expire on October 
1, 2017, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is 
later.

                      Section 2003--Effective Date

    This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, 
XXIV, XXV, XXVI, and XXVII of this Act shall take effect on 
October 1, 2014, or the date of enactment of this Act, 
whichever is later.

                 TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $539,427,000 for Army military 
construction and $429,585,000 for family housing for fiscal 
year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of 
$673,427,000 for military construction and $429,585,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2015.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project 
contained in the budget request for military construction and 
family housing. This reduction includes:
    (1) $13.0 million for a Command and Control Facility at 
Fort Shafter, Hawaii. The budget request included $96.0 million 
to support the command and control requirements for U.S. Army 
Pacific headquarters. While the committee supports the 
requirement for this facility, the committee is concerned that 
the unit cost for this facility is high compared to a standard 
design even when accounting for Area Cost Factors. Accordingly, 
the committee recommends $83.0 million, a reduction of $13.0 
million, for this project.
    In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of 
funding for several projects requested by the Department of the 
Army but not contained in the budget request for military 
construction and family housing. These increases include:
    (1) $86.0 million for an Advance Individual Training 
Barracks Complex, Phase 3, at Fort Lee, Virginia. The budget 
request did not include funding to support housing requirements 
for advanced individual training students. The committee notes 
that this project was included on a list of critical unfunded 
project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. 
Therefore, the committee recommends $86.0 million, an increase 
of $86.0 million, for this project.
    (2) $46.0 million for a Simulation Center at Fort Hood, 
Texas. The budget request did not include funding to support a 
command and control training using simulators. The committee 
notes that this project was included on a list of critical 
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of 
the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends $46.0 million, an 
increase of $46.0 million, for this project.
    (3) $15.0 million for a Consolidated Shipping Center at 
Bluegrass Army Depot, Kentucky. The budget request did not 
include funding to support a consolidated, indoor shipping and 
receiving center for munitions, arms, and explosives. The 
committee notes that this project was included on a list of 
critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the 
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends 
$15.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million, for this project.
    (4) $69.0 million for a High Value Detention Facility at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The budget request did not include 
funding to support this complex. The committee recommends $69.0 
million, an increase of $69.0 million, for this project.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Army 
construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2102--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 
2015.

          Section 2103--Authorization of Appropriations, Army

    This section would authorize appropriations for Army 
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 
of division D of this Act.

  Section 2104--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2004 Project

    This section would modify the authority provided by section 
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108-136) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the 
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 
section was included in the President's request.

  Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2013 Projects

    This section would modify the authority provided by section 
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-239) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the 
scope of previously authorized construction projects. This 
section was included in the President's request or included as 
a specific request from the Secretary of the Army.

 Section 2106--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

 Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

                 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,018,772,000 for Navy 
military construction and $370,441,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of 
$998,772,000 for military construction and $370,441,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2015.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustment

    The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project 
contained in the budget request for military construction and 
family housing. This reduction includes:
    (1) $20.0 million for the Center for Cyber Security Studies 
Building at Annapolis, Maryland. The budget request included 
$120.1 million to support the requirements for academic cyber 
security programs at the U.S. Naval Academy. The committee 
supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount 
equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute 
in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this 
project, the committee believes that the Department of the Navy 
has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal 
year 2015. As such, the committee recommends $100.1 million, a 
reduction of $20.0 million, for this project.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Navy 
construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2202--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 
2015.

      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2015.

          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

    This section would authorize appropriations for Navy 
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 
of division D of this Act.

  Section 2205--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2012 Projects

    This section would modify the authority provided by section 
2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the 
scope of a previously authorized construction projects. This 
section was included in the President's request.

  Section 2206--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2014 Project

    This section would modify the authority provided by section 
2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the 
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 
section was included in the President's request.

 Section 2207--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

 Section 2208--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

              TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $811,774,000 for Air Force 
military construction and $327,747,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of 
$811,774,000 for military construction and $327,747,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2015.

                       Items of Special Interest


                   Air Force Strategic Basing Process

    The committee notes that the Air Force has plans to divest 
legacy aircraft from its Active Duty and Reserve Component 
force structure over the Future Years Defense Program. While 
divesting of legacy aircraft, the Air Force will also conduct 
strategic basing reviews to determine where to locate new units 
and missions, such as the F-35A and the KC-46A, in the coming 
years. The committee is supportive of the Air Force's strategic 
basing process and believes that it provides a thorough, 
consistent, and transparent process for basing decisions. When 
evaluating candidate bases for new units and missions, the 
committee believes that it is appropriate for the Air Force to 
consider infrastructure supporting aircraft to be divested from 
its force structure as being available to support new units and 
missions should the scheduled divesture occur before the 
scheduled arrival of the new unit or mission.

            Infrastructure Deficiencies of Dining Facilities

    The committee is aware of serious infrastructure 
deficiencies of dining facilities at installations administered 
by the Air Force. The failure or unavailability of a dining 
facility would result in mission degradation, and greater risk 
exists at dining facilities constructed several decades ago or 
those originally intended to be temporary structures. Further, 
relative to the total cost of training operations and in the 
context of critical training missions, the committee believes 
that replacing severely deficient dining facilities is an 
appropriate, cost-effective method of preserving mission 
capabilities. The committee encourages the Air Force to take 
into consideration the necessity of reducing risk of mission 
stoppage by investing in the replacement of dining facilities 
that have infrastructure deficiencies which could cause health 
and safety issues.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force 
construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

        Section 2302--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

    This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force 
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 
of division D of this Act.

  Section 2303--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2008 Project

    This section would modify the authority provided by section 
2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (division B of Public Law 110-181) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications to the 
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 
section was included in the President's request.

 Section 2304--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

 Section 2305--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

           TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $2,061,890,000 for defense 
agency military construction and $62,662,000 for family housing 
for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of 
$2,032,890,000 for military construction and $62,662,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
    The budget request also contained $38,715,000 for chemical 
demilitarization construction. The committee recommends 
authorization of $38,715,000 for chemical demilitarization 
construction for fiscal year 2015.

                       Items of Special Interest


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends reduction of funding for several 
projects contained in the budget request for military 
construction and family housing. These reductions include:
    (1) $70.0 million for the Medical Center Replacement, 
Increment 4 at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany. The budget 
request included $259.695 million to support the replacement of 
an aging medical center that provides medical services to 
beneficiaries throughout U.S. European Command, as well as 
contingency casualty evacuation support for military personnel 
deployed in various combatant command areas of responsibility. 
The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in 
an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department 
to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. 
For this project, the committee believes that the Department of 
Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in 
fiscal year 2015. As such, the committee recommends $189.695 
million, a reduction of $70.0 million, for this project.
    (2) $20.0 million for planning and design activities at 
various worldwide locations. The budget request included 
$142.240 million to support the planning and design of projects 
in the construction program of various defense agencies. The 
committee supports authorizing appropriations for planning and 
design in an amount that supports military construction 
activities projected in the Future Years Defense Program 
(FYDP). For this request, the committee believes that the 
Department of Defense's budget request for planning and design 
exceeds the requirement necessary to support the construction 
program for the FYDP submitted for fiscal years 2015 through 
2019. As such, the committee recommends $122.24 million, a 
reduction of $20.0 million, for planning and design.
    (3) $9.0 million for contingency construction at various 
worldwide locations. The budget request included $9.0 million 
to support contingency construction requirements not previously 
authorized by law. The committee notes that the Department has 
not requested a military construction project using funds from 
this account since 2008. In addition, the committee notes that 
unobligated balances remain available in the military 
construction account and other authorities exist to construct 
projects that are in keeping with a national security interest. 
As such, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $9.0 
million, for this program.
    In addition, the committee recommends an increase of 
funding for projects contained in the budget request for 
military construction and family housing. These increases 
include:
    (1) $70.0 million for the Hospital Replacement, Increment 6 
at Fort Bliss, Texas. The budget request includes $131.5 
million to support the replacement of a hospital that provides 
inpatient and outpatient care to the beneficiary population at 
Fort Bliss. The committee supports the authorization of 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
military department to execute in the year of the authorization 
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes 
that the Department of Defense's request is below the amount 
required in fiscal year 2015 to support the construction 
project's scope and schedule without putting the project at 
risk. As such, the committee recommends $201.5 million, and 
increase of $70.0 million, for this project.
    (2) $20.0 million for Missile Defense Agency Military 
Construction Planning and Design activities for a CONUS 
Interceptor Site for homeland missile defense. The committee 
recommends $20.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million, for 
this project.

               Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility

    The committee notes that in January 2014, approximately 
27,000 gallons of fuel leaked from a tank in the Red Hill 
underground fuel storage facility. The underground storage 
facility was constructed in the early 1940s and contains 20 
fuel tanks that are buried beneath 100 feet of volcanic rock.
    The committee further notes that the budget request 
included $52.9 million in investments to replace two fuel tanks 
and upgrade the fire suppression and ventilation system 
supporting the Red Hill underground fuel storage facility. The 
committee believes that the Red Hill facility will continue to 
play an important supporting role for the U.S. rebalance to the 
Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House 
Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2014, on 
the long-term infrastructure improvements that may be necessary 
to support the continued safe and secure operation of the Red 
Hill underground fuel storage facility.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations


    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized defense 
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

         Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out energy conservation projects at the amounts 
authorized for each project at a specific location valued at a 
cost greater than $2.0 million. This section would also 
authorize the sum total of projects across various locations, 
each project of which is less than $2.0 million. This section 
would also preclude the ability to set-aside operation and 
maintenance facilities restoration and modernization funds for 
the exclusive purpose of funding energy projects. It would 
require installation energy projects to compete in the normal 
process of determining installation requirements.

    Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

    This section would authorize appropriations for defense 
agencies' military construction at the levels identified in 
section 4601 of division D of this Act.

 Section 2404--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

 Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

Section 2406--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain 
    Fiscal Year 2015 Projects Pending Submission of Required Reports

    This section would restrict the obligation of funds to 
support human performance center initiatives at certain 
locations, until the Secretary of Defense submits a report on 
this program that was required in the Joint Explanatory 
Statement to Accompany the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014, as printed in the Congressional Record on 
December 12, 2013 (page H7956), and a report on the review of 
Department of Defense efforts regarding the prevention of 
suicide among members of United States Special Operations 
Forces and their dependents required elsewhere in this Act.

          Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations


        Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 
              Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide

    This section would authorize appropriations for chemical 
demilitarization construction at the levels identified in 
section 4601 of division D of this Act.

  Section 2412--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2000 Project

    This section would modify the authority provided by section 
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 107-107), as amended, and 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to make certain 
modifications to the scope of a previously authorized 
construction project. This section was included in the 
President's request.

   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $199,700,000 for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) 
for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of 
$199,700,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2015.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of 
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act 
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for 
construction previously financed by the United States.

          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

    This section would authorize appropriations for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the 
levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $426,549,000 for military 
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for 
fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of 
$521,649,000 for military construction for fiscal year 2015.

                       Items of Special Interest


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for 
several projects requested by the Department of the Army but 
not contained in the budget request for military construction 
and family housing. These increases include:
    (1) $26.0 million for an Army Reserve Center at Arlington 
Heights, Illinois. The budget request did not include funding 
to support a reserve center for Army Reserve units. The 
committee notes that this project was included on a list of 
critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the 
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends 
$26.0 million, an increase of $26.0 million, for this project.
    (2) $25.0 million for an Army Reserve Center, Phase II, at 
Riverside, California. The budget request did not include 
funding to support a reserve center for Army Reserve units. The 
committee notes that this project was included on a list of 
critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the 
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends 
$25.0 million, an increase of $25.0 million, for this project.
    (3) $19.0 million for Enlisted Barracks and Transit 
Training at the Yakima Training Center, Washington. The budget 
request did not include funding to support the requirements of 
the Washington Army National Guard's Regional Training 
Institute. The committee notes that this project was included 
on a list of critical unfunded project requirements submitted 
by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee 
recommends $19.0 million, an increase of $19.0 million, for 
this project.
    (4) $10.8 million for a National Guard Vehicle Maintenance 
Shop at Dagsboro, Delaware. The budget request did not include 
funding to support vehicle maintenance shop requirements for 
the Delaware Army National Guard. The committee notes that this 
project was included on a list of critical unfunded project 
requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. 
Therefore, the committee recommends $10.8 million, an increase 
of $10.8 million, for this project.
    (5) $9.3 million for an Army Reserve Center and Land at 
Starkville, Mississippi. The budget request did not include 
funding to support a reserve center and land acquisition for 
Army Reserve units. The committee notes that this project was 
included on a list of critical unfunded project requirements 
submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the 
committee recommends $9.3 million, an increase of $9.3 million, 
for this project.
    (6) $5.0 million for a National Guard Readiness Center 
Addition/Alternation at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The budget 
request did not include funding to support additions/
alterations required to address facility shortages and 
inadequacies at a readiness center. The committee notes that 
this project was included on a list of critical unfunded 
project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. 
Therefore, the committee recommends $5.0 million, an increase 
of $5.0 million, for this project.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations


  Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Army 
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Army 
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

    Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
               Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Navy 
Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for 
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in 
this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific 
projects authorized at each location.

   Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Air 
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

   Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force 
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

   Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and 
                                Reserve

    This section would authorize appropriations for the 
National Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels 
identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters


  Section 2611--Modification and Extension of Authority to Carry Out 
                   Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects

    This section would modify the authority provided by section 
2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the 
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 
section would also extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2018, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2019, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

  Section 2612--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2013 Project

    This section would modify the authority provided by section 
2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-293) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the 
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 
section was included in the President's request.

 Section 2613--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the 
President's request.

          TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES


                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $270,085,000 for activities 
related to Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities. The 
committee recommends authorization of $270,085,000 for BRAC 
activities.

                       Items of Special Interest


            Base Closure and Realignment Disposal Assessment

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
requested authority to conduct another round of defense base 
closures and realignment (BRAC) in 2017. BRAC is often cited as 
a means of saving significant defense dollars in a time of 
declining budgets. The committee is concerned that efficiencies 
associated with the BRAC process are offset with the inability 
to quickly dispose of excess property and the potential lack of 
overall savings to the federal government. For example, there 
are numerous instances where the Department of Defense conveyed 
excess property to other Federal agencies and the overall 
Government may not have saved money.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2015, as to the overall effectiveness of the property 
disposal process. The report should specifically assess each 
prior BRAC round (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005), by 
military department, and provide the following:
    (1) A listing, by acre, of property disposed to: other 
Federal agencies; state and local agencies; non-profit 
entities; and the private sector;
    (2) A list of remaining acreage to be disposed;
    (3) An assessment of land sale revenues realized from prior 
property disposal actions;
    (4) An assessment of environmental expenditures and 
caretaker services expended; and
    (5) An assessment of remaining environmental remediation 
costs to complete and associated caretaker services anticipated 
during the environmental remediation.

           Joint Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations

    At the request of the committee, the Government 
Accountability Office has issued reports on the status of 
Department of Defense's joint basing initiative. However, the 
committee remains concerned that efforts to implement Base 
Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 2005 recommendations that 
required the military services to merge or consolidate 
functions to become more joint were not effectively 
implemented, obviating certain cost saving opportunities. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2015, on the status of Department of 
Defense actions to implement its BRAC 2005 recommendations that 
meet these goals of reducing infrastructure and promoting 
``jointness.'' The report should address the following 
questions:
    (1) To what extent has the Department of Defense identified 
benefits, cost savings, and/or cost avoidances resulting from 
implementing these recommendations?
    (2) To what extent has the Department achieved enhancements 
to joint operations from establishment of joint centers of 
excellence or joint training activities or achieved other 
operational efficiencies from such consolidations?
    (3) What challenges has the Department experienced in 
implementing these initiatives and to what extent has the 
Department of Defense resolved these challenges?

                       Property Disposal Methods

    The committee seeks a greater understanding of the 
Department of Defense's implementation of homeless assistance, 
pursuant to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (Public 
Law 100-77), via property disposal actions that the Department 
of Defense completes through the Base Realignment and Closure 
Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), as amended. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2015, on the findings of a review of the effectiveness 
of implementation of the relevant statutory provisions by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department 
of Defense.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations


Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and 
 Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure 
                                Account

    This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing 
activities that are required to implement the decision of Base 
Realignment and Closure activities at the levels identified in 
section 4601 of division D of this Act.

            Subtitle B--Prohibition On Additional BRAC Round


Section 2711--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and 
                          Closure (BRAC) Round

    This section would affirm congressional intent to reject 
the budget request to authorize another Base Realignment and 
Closure round in 2017.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


 Section 2721--Force-Structure Plans and Infrastructure Inventory and 
 Assessment of Infrastructure Necessary To Support the Force Structure

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report as part of the budget justification documents 
submitted to Congress in support of the President's budget for 
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016 that details (1) 
a 20-year force structure plan, and (2) a comprehensive 
inventory of worldwide infrastructure. The report shall also 
compare these two items to determine categories of excess in 
the Department of Defense infrastructure. The Secretary of 
Defense shall also certify whether the need exists for the 
closure or realignment of additional military installations and 
whether the Secretary anticipates that each Base Closure and 
Realignment recommendation would result in annual net savings 
for each of the military departments within 6 years after the 
initiation of the additional round of closures and 
realignments.
    This section would also require that within 60 days of 
submission of the Secretary of Defense report, the Comptroller 
General of the United States shall evaluate the accuracy and 
analytical sufficiency of the plan and inventory.

 Section 2722--Modification of Property Disposal Procedures Under Base 
                    Realignment and Closure Process

    This section would authorize the local government, in whose 
jurisdiction the military installation is wholly located, to be 
recognized as the local reuse authority for purposes of 
managing Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) reuse planning. 
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees as to 
excess BRAC property that has not been declared surplus by the 
Federal Government.

Section 2723--Final Settlement of Claims Regarding Caretaker Agreement 
                  for Former Defense Depot Ogden, Utah

    This section would limit any further claim adjudication 
associated with a caretaker agreement between the City of 
Ogden, Utah, the Ogden Local Redevelopment Authority, and the 
Department of the Army. This limitation would be conditioned on 
a release of claims against the United States by the City of 
Ogden and the Ogden Local Redevelopment Authority.

         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


        Army Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment

    The committee notes that the Army has used a stationing 
strategy, called Army 2020, to analyze the various options 
available to the Secretary of the Army to implement a reduction 
in force structure. The Army 2020 process used key inputs 
including a Programmatic Environmental Assessment, a military 
value analysis, community listening sessions, and an analysis 
of other stationing factors. Additionally, military judgment, 
utilizing a variety of planning and steering committees was 
incorporated into the final decision to reduce specific Brigade 
Combat Teams (BCTs). As a result of the Army 2020 process, the 
Army inactivated 12 BCTs and reorganized the remaining BCTs by 
adding a third maneuver battalion to armor and infantry 
brigades located in the continental United States. On February 
6, 2014, the Army announced plans to implement a Supplemental 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SPEA), to analyze the 
reduction of the Active Component below 490,000 soldiers. 
However, the Army is proceeding with the SPEA before fully 
implementing the results of Army 2020.
    The committee believes it is appropriate for the Secretary 
of the Army to use the results of the Army 2020 analysis as the 
baseline input of the SPEA. Therefore, concurrent with the 
release of the draft SPEA, the committee directs the Secretary 
of the Army to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 
September 1, 2014, on the baseline for the SPEA and any 
deviation from the Army 2020 analysis. If the Secretary is 
compelled to deviate from the Army 2020 analysis, the Secretary 
should provide the committee an explanation of why such 
deviation is appropriate.

             Cyber and Electromagnetic Open-Air Test Ranges

    The committee believes that the Department of Defense needs 
to maintain robust test range capabilities to meet current and 
emerging cyber and electromagnetic requirements. The committee 
believes that maintaining the ability to support testing, 
evaluation, and simulation of cyber and electromagnetic 
capabilities and threats in an open-air environment with 
limited spectrum encroachment is important to U.S. national 
security interests. As such, the committee believes that the 
Department of Defense should continue to ensure that test 
ranges have modern facilities, instruments, equipment, as well 
as sufficient funds to support its mission. In addition, the 
Department should take appropriate actions to mitigate 
encroachment or other threats that may reduce the capacity or 
capability to conduct necessary testing missions to ensure a 
modern military.

                 Deployment of Secure Work Environments

    The committee is aware of the increasing importance of 
protecting valuable intellectual property and sensitive 
information, especially during this current cyber environment. 
The committee notes that data loss prevention is critical for 
the long-term sustainment of most military operations, 
personnel protection, and troop movements, particularly when 
information needs to be discussed in locations outside of a 
fully protected Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility 
(SCIF).
    The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
establish an agency-wide strategy to create secure work 
environments where unclassified but sensitive information can 
be shared utilizing technological advances in full spectrum 
Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring and commercial off the shelf 
solutions for film protected glass that protects from data loss 
and intrusion. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2015, that: (1) details a programmatic 
plan to provide additional protection from RF and Infrared (IR) 
for non-SCIF facilities that would be impacted by potential 
intrusions; and (2) an assessment of the Unified Facilities 
Guide specifications that are used to provide RF and IR 
protections.

                     Facilities Modernization Model

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense's real 
property management process requires extensive oversight to 
maintain more than $850.0 billion in infrastructure at an 
annual cost of nearly $60.0 billion. As part of its overall 
effort to maintain facilities, the Department of Defense is 
required to modernize certain facilities to make sure that they 
meet current standards. To assist in this process, the 
Department of Defense developed its Facilities Modernization 
Model which predicts the average annual dollar amount required 
for the Department to modernize its inventory of facilities on 
an ongoing basis.
    The Facilities Modernization Model parallels the Facilities 
Sustainment Model. In 2008, the Government Accountability 
Office reported that although the sustainment model provides a 
consistent and reasonable framework for preparing estimates of 
the Department of Defense's facility sustainment funding 
requirements, there were issues with some of the model's key 
inputs, affecting the reliability of the model's estimates. As 
the Modernization Model should always be used in conjunction 
with the Facilities Sustainment Model, the committee is 
concerned that similar issues may affect the reliability of the 
Facilities Modernization Model's estimates. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2015, on the Facilities Modernization Model to include 
the following:
    (1) What are the main inputs into the Facilities 
Modernization Model and to what extent have the Department and 
the military services validated these inputs?
    (2) To what extent are the services funding facility 
modernization at levels determined by the model; how are 
decisions made to deviate from the models? recommendations if 
needed; and what is the impact if modernization funding is not 
provided at the recommended levels?

                Family Housing at Camp Humphreys, Korea

    The committee supports the Yongsan Relocation Plan agreed 
to by the United States and the Republic of Korea to relocate 
United States military forces from Seoul, Korea to Camp 
Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Korea. The committee notes that while 
the majority of the relocation costs will be paid by the 
Republic of Korea, the Department of the Army is responsible 
for the acquisition of military family housing at Camp 
Humphreys that meets U.S. standards for acceptable size, 
condition, and quality of construction to support command 
sponsored families that will be stationed there.
    The committee notes that the Commander, United States 
Forces, Korea has indicated a requirement for 40 percent of 
command-sponsored families to reside on Camp Humphreys based on 
operational needs to enhance readiness. He also testified that 
additional family housing at Camp Humphreys is required 
starting in 2016.
    In 2008, the committee notes that the Department of the 
Army competitively solicited and agreed to terms with a private 
partner to construct and operate family housing units on Camp 
Humphreys. The goal of this project was to use private 
financing to construct military family housing on-post at Camp 
Humphreys. This acquisition method was preferred by the 
Department over a significant investment in military 
construction, which was unsupportable given the limited amounts 
available in military family housing construction accounts and 
other operational priorities in the Army.
    The committee is mindful that the Army conducted a family 
housing forum in Korea in March 2014. This forum confirmed that 
without some combination of a higher Overseas Housing Allowance 
and occupancy guarantees little new construction of American 
style family housing units is likely to be built in the area 
around Camp Humphreys. The committee is concerned that housing 
in the Pyeongtaek, Korea area does not afford military members 
and their families adequate housing, meeting quality and force 
protection standards without significant out-of-pocket 
expenses. The committee believes that privatized housing may be 
a solution for the pending family housing shortage at Camp 
Humphreys.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to prepare a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2015, a detailed description of the factors and 
assessment used to determine the adequacy of an off-base 
housing unit in the Pyeongtaek area and an assessment of the 
progress and milestones for the acquisition of adequate housing 
for military members and their families.

    High Performance Facades for Department of Defense Installations

    The committee is aware of a new blast protection technology 
that has been developed which utilizes high performance 
materials through a secondary facade structure to provide 
increased blast and ballistic protection to Department of 
Defense buildings, bases, and installations. The committee 
notes that such secondary facades could provide the Department 
increased flexibility and cost-savings in certain situations 
where relocation is being considered. The committee also notes 
that secondary facades could be more useful for retrofitting 
and upgrading existing buildings, as well as being incorporated 
into the architectural designs of new buildings. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2014, on 
recent efforts to utilize and test high performance materials 
as a secondary facade structure and any modifications to the 
Unified Facility Guide Specifications that would be necessary 
to incorporate the assessment of this technology.

          Innovative Building Materials and Design Techniques

    The committee notes that in March 2013, the Department of 
Defense released Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-02, 
High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. UFC 1-
200-02 defines the minimum requirements for planning, design 
and construction, renovation, repair, maintenance and 
operations, and equipment installation in new and existing 
facilities. In a policy memorandum issued in November 2013, 
military components were authorized to pursue greater energy 
and water efficiency if such initiatives are shown to reduce 
total ownership cost of the facility, or preserve or increase 
mission effectiveness in the face of projected resource 
scarcity.
    The committee recognizes that innovative technologies have 
expanded the availability of materials with lower embodied 
energy for facilities that require tall walls and large open 
spaces with minimal intermediate supports. In addition, design 
techniques such as advanced framing contribute to lower 
material costs, increased energy efficiency, and reduced waste 
in facilities. Therefore, the committee encourages the 
Department of Defense to incorporate the use of innovative 
materials and design techniques that support the requirements 
of UFC 1-200-02 and the goals of achieving greater efficiency 
and lower environmental impacts at a lower material cost.

                          Joint Land Use Study

    The committee notes that military installations are often 
the economic engines that underpin and drive local economies. 
Direct expenditures of defense dollars in the form of payrolls 
and local procurement contracts generate in turn secondary 
expenditures that help support local economies. Military 
installations can also affect adjacent communities in several 
ways, some positive (as with the economic impacts) and some 
negative. Negative impacts may include noise, safety concerns, 
smoke, dust, and other effects from training and military 
operations. In some instances, the military attempts to 
moderate these negative effects through the Joint Land Use 
Program.
    The committee is aware of certain noise and encroachment 
concerns around the U.S. Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force 
Base and Fort Carson, Colorado. The committee believes that a 
Joint Land Use Study of the surrounding area would be effective 
to help offset these negative consequences. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide notice to 
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, of the 
Joint Land Used Studies that the Secretary has programmed and a 
schedule for when the area supporting the U.S. Air Force 
Academy, Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson are expected 
to begin a Joint Land Use Study.

                  Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization

    The committee notes that the infrastructure supporting 
Lincoln Laboratory's facilities at Hanscom Air Force Base, 
Massachusetts, are in need of recapitalization in order to 
support its mission. The committee is aware that the Air Force, 
in coordination with Lincoln Laboratory, has developed an 
Enhanced Use Lease proposal using existing authorities under 
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, which has been 
approved by the Department of Defense and is under review by 
the Office of Management and Budget. The Enhanced Use Lease 
will allow Massachusetts Institute of Technology to carry out 
improvements and modernization of the Lincoln Laboratory 
complex at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, at no cost to 
the U.S. Government. The modernization effort will replace the 
aging compound semiconductor and microelectronics integration 
facilities and the engineering and prototyping facilities with 
two modern, energy efficient buildings. The committee supports 
the plans to keep Lincoln Laboratory on the cutting edge of 
technology and enable it to continue to confront the Nation's 
most complex technological challenges.

       Performance-Based Standards for Building System Components

    The Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) provide 
guidance for the design and construction of facilities and the 
acquisition of building system components by the Department of 
Defense. The committee notes the limited resources available to 
the Department for the construction and maintenance of 
facilities. The committee further recognizes the consistent 
implementation of the Department's construction specifications 
is critical to acquiring high performing and life-cycle cost-
effective assets. The committee is aware of recent instances of 
military construction projects in which deviations from the 
construction specifications occurred. The committee reminds the 
Department that the use of UFGS are mandatory and encourages 
the Secretary of Defense to ensure that those specifications 
are consistently applied in construction and renovation.

                 Public-Private Family Housing on Guam

    The committee recognizes that the Department of the Navy 
recently released a draft supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement regarding the development of a main cantonment area 
and firing range for U.S. Marines realigning from Okinawa, 
Japan, to Guam. Further, the committee recognizes that the 
Distributed Laydown differs significantly from previous 
realignment plans, as it depends on a more heavily rotational 
force on Guam than a permanent headquarters presence. Under the 
renegotiated agreement with the Government of Japan to support 
the Distributed Laydown, the committee understands that the 
Government of Japan will no longer provide nearly $3.0 billion 
in special purpose entity (SPE) funds. According to plans and 
briefings from the Department, a SPE is essentially a public-
private venture (PPV) for military family housing and certain 
utility improvements.
    Despite the changes to the plans for the realignment of 
U.S. Marines, the committee recognizes that additional military 
forces are also realigning to Guam as part of the Asia-Pacific 
rebalance. In particular, the Navy announced the stationing of 
a fourth Los Angeles class fast-attack submarine in Guam, and 
the Air Force continues a Red Horse and Contingency Response 
Group beddown at Andersen Air Force Base. These additional 
forces, along with other potential military personnel 
increases, will challenge the current inventory of military 
family housing on Guam. The committee has been supportive of 
PPV endeavors in other U.S. locations and recognizes the 
potential long-term cost savings coupled with improvements to 
quality of life matters for service members and their families.
    As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by 
April 1, 2015, on the feasibility of utilizing public-private 
housing ventures on Guam and any factors that might inhibit 
establishment of such a public-private housing venture. The 
report should also assess the current backlog and projected 
backlog in the Future Years Defense Program as to shortfalls in 
family housing, by service, and the measures that the Secretary 
has programmed to address these shortfalls.

                        Real Property Management

    The committee is concerned about the Department of 
Defense's management of real property resources. In an era of 
declining resources, the committee is concerned by decisions 
made by the Department of Defense to retain underutilized real 
property. The committee is supportive of real property 
authorities that provide the Secretary concerned the authority 
to outlease non-excess properties, but believes that there are 
instances where the Department has not fully utilized these 
authorities to manage its real property assets. For example, 
the committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force is 
responsible for Keesler Air Force Base and certain 
noncontiguous properties in the area. A former base housing 
area called Harrison Court was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina 
and the 40 acre parcel remains vacant 9 years since Hurricane 
Katrina. The committee notes that the Air Force continues to 
expend funds to maintain the vacant property while the local 
community expresses interest in developing the property for 
economic or public use purposes. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the value of 
certain noncontiguous properties in the Keesler Air Force Base 
area and to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2015, that determines whether there 
remains a continued requirement for the Air Force to maintain 
these properties, the feasibility of an enhanced use lease, or 
the Secretary's intent to initiate excess proceeding for these 
properties.

         Report on Circumvention of Military Construction Laws

    The committee is aware of certain construction projects 
that were awarded without a specific authorization from 
Congress and in apparent contravention to section 2802 of title 
10, Unites States Code. The committee is concerned by the 
contracting officer's and fiscal attorney's assessment to not 
seek a specific military construction authorization for these 
projects prior to award. The committee is further concerned 
that similar construction projects may have been undertaken 
within the past 5 years without a specific authorization by 
Congress. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2015, that assesses the entirety of all 
construction projects carried out in the last 5 years by the 
Secretary concerned without a specific authorization by 
Congress. This assessment should only review construction 
projects that exceed the minor military construction thresholds 
established by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code.

            Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads

    As requested in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, the committee notes that the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics submitted 
the report, ``Analysis of Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective 
Glass Beads'' to the congressional defense committees on April 
16, 2014. In its report, the Department of Defense stated that 
``Type III glass beads provide a modest increase in visibility 
compared with Type I beads but this benefit is short-lived and 
costly. Although the Department does not preclude the use of 
Type III beads, we find Type I glass beads to be a satisfactory 
and cost-effective solution for our airport pavement marking 
requirements.'' The committee also notes that another report 
entitled, ``Airfield Marking Durability Study'' was prepared on 
March 12, 2014, by Sightline, LC, that found ``based on 
reflectivity data recorded at 13 airports across the United 
States, including military and commercial, Type III glass beads 
provide higher levels of retro-reflectivity initially and over 
time, resulting in lower maintenance costs.'' The committee 
notes that the Department of Defense was likely unable to 
consider the findings of the report by Sightline, LC when it 
was preparing its report to the congressional defense 
committees.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to assess 
the Sightline, LC report and information associated with Type 
III glass beads and determine whether this additional 
information was incorporated into its report, ``Analysis of 
Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads'' submitted on 
April 16, 2014. If the Sightline, LC report was not considered, 
the committee directs the Under Secretary to prepare an 
addendum to their previous report and submit it to the 
congressional defense committees by December 31, 2014, and use 
the Sightline, LC report, and any other new information 
available, to assess the value associated with incorporating 
Type III beads into the Unified Facilities Guide 
Specifications.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes


Section 2801--Prevention of Circumvention of Military Construction Laws

    This section would amend section 2802 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify that certain military construction 
projects, land acquisitions, and defense-access roads projects 
must be specifically authorized in a Military Construction 
Authorization Act.

Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified Minor 
                         Military Construction

    This section would modify section 2805 of title 10, United 
States Code, by increasing the threshold associated with 
operation and maintenance funding for construction purposes 
from $750,000 to $1.0 million. This section would also unify 
the threshold for application of unspecified minor construction 
from $2.0 million to $3.0 million. Finally, this section would 
authorize the Secretary concerned to make adjustments to the 
general authority to match area cost factors.

Section 2803--Use of One-Step Turn-Key Contractor Selection Procedures 
                    for Additional Facility Projects

    This section would modify section 2862 of title 10, United 
States Code, to expand the existing authority to use turn-key 
selection procedures for military construction projects to also 
include certain repair projects and facility construction 
associated with authorized security assistance activities.

   Section 2804--Extension of Limitation on Construction Projects in 
                European Command Area of Responsibility

    This section would extend the prohibition previously 
included in section 2809 of the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 
Law 113-66) on awarding a contract for any new military 
construction and family housing project, with certain 
exceptions, in the U.S. European Command area of responsibility 
until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional 
defense committees that the installations and specific military 
construction requirements authorized in this Act have been 
examined as part of the ongoing European Infrastructure 
Consolidation Assessment, have been determined to be of an 
enduring nature, and most effectively meet military 
requirements at the authorized location.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


Section 2811--Consultation Requirement in Connection with Department of 
                    Defense Major Land Acquisitions

    This section would require consultation by the Secretary 
concerned with the chief executive officer of the state or 
territory as to the location of any proposed major land 
acquisition.
    The committee notes that the Secretary concerned is already 
required to obtain a specific military construction 
authorization in accordance with section 2802 of title 10, 
United States Code, and comply with National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) before any major land 
acquisition can be implemented.

Section 2812--Renewals, Extensions, and Succeeding Leases for Financial 
            Institutions Operating on Military Installations

    This section would authorize the Secretary concerned to 
enter into a sole source renewal, extension or succeeding lease 
for a financial institution operating on military 
installations.

       Section 2813--Arsenal Installation Reutilization Authority

    This section would modify section 2667 of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide the authorities to lease real or 
personal property contained in such section to the commander of 
military manufacturing arsenals or, if part of a larger 
military installation, the installation commander for the 
purposes of leveraging private investment at military 
manufacturing arsenals through long-term facility use 
contracts, property management contracts, leases, or other such 
agreements. This section does not supersede authorities in 
section 4544 of title 10, United States Code, and is designed 
to give the commander of military manufacturing arsenals or, if 
part of a larger military installation, the installation 
commander, greater flexibility to utilize unused administrative 
and warehouse space at military installations.

   Section 2814--Deposit of Reimbursed Funds to Cover Administrative 
        Expenses Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions

    This section would amend section 2695 of title 10, United 
States Code, and would provide flexibility to ensure that 
reimbursements eventually received by the military departments 
are not expired at the time of reimbursement. This section 
would provide for the merger of the reimbursed funds with those 
in the current appropriation, fund, or account used by the 
military departments for payment of administrative transaction-
related expenses. Finally, this section would authorize the 
military departments to use operation and maintenance 
appropriations to pay for administrative expenses needed to 
complete other real property transactions.

 Section 2815--Special Easement Acquisition Authority, Pacific Missile 
              Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
use the authority provided by section 2684a of title 10, United 
States Code, to acquire from willing sellers easements and 
other interests in real property in the vicinity of the Pacific 
Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii.

Section 2816--National Security Considerations for Inclusion of Federal 
  Property on National Register of Historic Places or Designation as 
National Historic Landmark under the National Historic Preservation Act

    This section would prohibit the designation of Federal 
property as a National Historic Landmark or for nomination to 
the World Heritage List if the head of the agency managing the 
Federal property objects to such inclusion or designation for 
reasons of national security. This section would also authorize 
the expedited removal of Federal property listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places if the managing agency of 
that Federal property submits a request to the Secretary of 
Interior for such removal for reasons of national security.

  Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment


    Section 2831--Repeal or Modification of Certain Restrictions on 
       Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region

    This section would amend section 2822 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) and strike certain restrictions limiting 
the movement of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan to 
Guam.

                      Subtitle D--Land Conveyances


Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, La Jolla, 
                               California

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey, without consideration, certain Department of the Navy 
property to the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Association in 
La Jolla, California, for public purposes.

   Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Former Walter Reed Army Hospital, 
                          District of Columbia

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, certain Army facilities at the 
former Walter Reed Army Hospital to Children's Hospital for 
medical research purposes.

 Section 2843--Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. 
                    Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army and 
the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands located Camp 
Frank D. Merrill in Dahlonega, Georgia, currently under the 
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, 
for certain lands adjacent to Lake Lanier, Georgia, currently 
under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
Army.

 Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey, without consideration, approximately 1.2 acres of 
public land to the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation 
for public purposes.

  Section 2845--Modification of Conditions on Land Conveyance, Joliet 
                    Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois

    This section would extend years of operations associated 
with certain landfill operations at the Joliet Army Ammunition 
Plant, Illinois from 23 years to 38 years.

  Section 2846--Land Conveyance, Robert H. Dietz Army Reserve Center, 
                           Kingston, New York

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, the former Robert H. Dietz Army 
Reserve Center to the City of Kingston, New York, for public 
purposes.

 Section 2847--Exercise of Reversionary Interest, Camp Gruber, Oklahoma

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
perform a business case analysis to assess the requirements 
associated with reacquiring the former Camp Gruber, Oklahoma. 
If the Secretary determines that a reversion of the former Camp 
Gruber is needed for national defense purposes, the Secretary 
shall exercise the reversionary rights and request the Oklahoma 
Department of Wildlife to reconvey Camp Gruber to the United 
States. The Secretary shall then convey, without consideration, 
the former Camp Gruber to the Oklahoma Military Department for 
military maneuver space.

        Section 2848--Land Conveyance, Hanford Site, Washington

    This section would require the Secretary of the Energy to 
convey two parcels of real property to the Community Reuse 
Organization of the Hanford Site for fair market value by 
December 31, 2014. The Secretary of the Energy may convey the 
property below fair market value if the Community Reuse 
Organization agrees to provide the net proceeds from the sale 
or lease of the real property during a seven year period to 
support economic redevelopment at the Hanford Site, Washington.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


  Section 2861--Memorial to the Victims of the Shooting Attack at the 
                          Washington Navy Yard

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
establish a memorial at the Washington Navy Yard in the 
District of Columbia. The memorial will be dedicated to the 
victims of the shooting attack that occurred on September 16, 
2013.

  Section 2862--Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 
   Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security 
                                Studies

    This section would name the Asia-Pacific Center for 
Security Studies at Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ``Daniel K. Inouye 
Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies'', and would make 
other conforming changes.

Section 2863--Redesignation of Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii as the 
                       Pohakuloa Training Center

    This section would change the designation of the Pohakuloa 
Training Area in Hawaii to the Pohakuloa Training Center.

   Section 2864--Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross National 
                   Memorial in Riverside, California

    This section would authorize a memorial to members of the 
Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying 
Cross. The memorial is located at March Field Air Museum in 
Riverside, California, and would hereby be designated as the 
Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial.

 Section 2865--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National 
                         Historical Park, Ohio

    This section would modify the name of the John W. Berry, 
Sr. Wright Brothers Aviation Center, Dayton, Ohio, to the John 
W. Berry, Sr. Wright Brothers National Museum, Dayton, Ohio.

        Section 2866--Manhattan Project National Historical Park

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Interior to 
establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park as a 
unit of the National Park System.

    TITLE XXIX--MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS TO SUPPORT 
                         READINESS AND SECURITY

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada


   Section 2901--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air 
                         Station Fallon, Nevada

    This section would transfer certain public lands adjacent 
to Naval Air Station Fallon in Churchill County, Nevada, from 
the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy.

                       Section 2902--Water Rights

    This section would ensure that the United States does not 
acquire additional water rights as a result of the transfer of 
administrative jurisdiction authorized by this subtitle.

                        Section 2903--Withdrawal

    This section would withdraw lands transferred by this 
subtitle from all forms of appropriation under public land laws 
so long as the land remains under the administrative 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy.

  Subtitle B--Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, 
                               California


   Section 2911--Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle 
                      Recreation Area, California

    This section would rename the Johnson Valley Off-Highway 
Vehicle Recreation Area in California, as the Johnson Valley 
National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area.

    Subtitle C--Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military Lands 
                         Efficiency and Savings


     Section 2921--Elimination of Termination Date for Public Land 
  Withdrawals and Reservations Under Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 
                                  1999

    This section would extend the public lands withdrawn for 
military purposes listed in the Military Lands Withdrawal Act 
of 1999 (title 30 of Public Law 106-65) until the Secretary of 
the military department determines a military purpose does not 
exist, or the Secretary of Interior permanently transfers the 
administrative jurisdiction to the Secretary of the military 
department concerned.

      Subtitle D--Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California


 Section 2931--Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land for Naval Air 
                 Weapons Station China Lake, California

    This section would amend section 2979 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) and permanently extend the withdrawal and 
reservation of public land for Naval Air Weapons Station China 
Lake, California. This section would also permanently withdraw 
public lands known as Cuddeback Land Area for use by the 
Secretary of the Navy.

           Subtitle E--White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico


 Section 2941--Additional Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land to 
             Support White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico

    This section would amend section 2951 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) and extend the withdrawal and reservation 
of public land of White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, to 
include Federal lands located beneath the boundaries of the 
Special Use Airspace designated as R-5107C and R-5107H.

 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS


                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $17.7 
billion for atomic energy defense activities. The committee 
recommends $17.4 billion, a decrease of $308.0 million to the 
budget request.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                National Nuclear Security Administration


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $11.7 billion for the programs 
of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 
2011. The committee recommends $11.8 billion, an increase of 
$143.7 million to the budget request.

                           Weapons Activities


B61-12 and W76-1 Life Extension Programs

    The budget request contained $643.0 million for the B61 
Life Extension Program (LEP) and $259.2 million for the W76 
LEP. The committee continues to believe that the National 
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) primary focus must be 
its nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program, and within 
that broader program the deliverables directly supporting 
Department of Defense requirements must be paramount. 
Successfully delivering LEPs efficiently and on schedule must 
be NNSA's central focus.
    The committee notes the considerable progress of the B61 
LEP in the past year. With development engineering well 
underway, the Director of Sandia National Laboratories 
testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on 
April 9, 2014, that the design of the B61-12 bomb is 75 percent 
complete and all major schedule and cost milestones established 
in the program baseline, as adjusted for receipt of 
appropriations, have been met. The committee is encouraged by 
the progress of this critical program and believes continued 
success will help NNSA rebuild lost trust with the Department 
of Defense and Congress. The committee recommends $643.0 
million for the B61 LEP, the amount of the budget request.
    The committee also notes that NNSA completed only 74 
percent of the W76-1 production build schedule in fiscal year 
2013. The committee understands that a key cause of this was 
uncertainty in funding and delays at the Pantex site. The 
committee believes NNSA's plan to ramp up to the full, steady-
state production rate for the W76 LEP in fiscal year 2015, and 
therefore meet the Navy's deliverable schedule, is at 
significant risk. Therefore, the committee recommends $273.8 
million for the W76 LEP, an increase of $14.6 million from the 
budget request.

Deferral of the W78/88-1 Life Extension Program

    The fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes to defer the 
W78/88-1 Warhead Life Extension Program (LEP) by at least 5 
years. This program would create an ``interoperable'' warhead 
containing key components that could be used on both submarine-
launched ballistic missiles and land-based intercontinental 
ballistic missiles. The National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) believes the deferral of this program 
does not represent an abandonment of the Nuclear Weapons 
Council's long-term ``3+2'' strategy for the nuclear weapons 
stockpile, but does create a more realistic out-year funding 
profile for NNSA's Weapons Activities.
    The committee does not object to the proposed deferral in 
principle, and is aware of the challenges to this program 
related to costs, certification, and the potential need for 
increased missile flight tests. However, the committee is 
concerned about the implications of this deferral for the 
nuclear weapons stockpile and the nuclear security enterprise. 
Deferral will reduce opportunities for sustaining critical 
design and development skills at Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory, create significant production gaps at Pantex 
(coupled with the proposed deferral of the long-range standoff 
weapon warhead), require a reevaluation of the overall strategy 
for hedging against the risk through the non-deployed and 
inactive stockpiles, and reduce the ability to leverage 
development efforts between LEPs. The committee expects the 
Nuclear Weapons Council to consider these impacts in the months 
ahead and expects robust mitigation actions to be formulated 
and carried out.
    Furthermore, deferral places increased importance on 
surveillance efforts related to the existing W78 warhead. The 
budget request contained $62.7 million for W78 Stockpile 
Systems. The committee recommends $66.4 million for W78 
Stockpile Systems, an increase of $3.7 million, to support 
increased surveillance.
    Finally, the committee notes that section 3118 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66) remains in effect for the future and expects the 
comparative analysis required by that section to be submitted 
prior to the W78/88-1 LEP entering Phase 6.3 (development 
engineering).

Deferred maintenance

    Within Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), 
the budget request contained $205.0 million for Maintenance and 
Repair of Facilities and $209.3 million for Recapitalization. 
These funds are intended to slow the rate of growth in the 
backlog of deferred maintenance at facilities across the 
nuclear security enterprise.
    Budget justification materials submitted by the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) note that NNSA's 
deferred maintenance backlog is over $3.5 billion and growing. 
The materials highlight that, of NNSA's approximately 3,800 
facilities, almost 30 percent were built during the Manhattan 
Project era and over 50 percent are more than 40 years old.
    The committee agrees with NNSA that infrastructure risk, if 
left unaddressed, becomes safety risk and mission risk. The 
committee fears that, given NNSA's numerous high-priority 
programs and the termination of the Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) in 2013, 
insufficient attention and funding will be applied to the 
deferred maintenance problem going forward.
    To support NNSA's efforts to continue mitigating 
infrastructure risks and buying down deferred maintenance, the 
committee recommends $220.0 million for Maintenance and Repair 
of Facilities, an increase of $15.0 million, and $248.3 million 
for Recapitalization, an increase of $39.0 million. Of the 
funding provided for Recapitalization, the committee expects 
the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide at least 
$60.0 million to the Capabilities Based Investment program to 
focus recapitalization efforts on the highest priority mission 
needs.

Implementation of Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Response, 
        and Testing

    Section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required the Administrator 
for Nuclear Security to establish a Center for Security 
Technology, Analysis, Response, and Testing (CSTART). In the 
wake of the security breach at the Y-12 National Security 
Complex in July 2012, the CSTART was established to provide the 
Administrator, the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, and the 
management and operating contractors of the nuclear security 
enterprise a wide-range of objective expertise on security 
technologies, systems, analysis, testing, and response forces.
    To better understand the Administrator's plan for the 
CSTART, the committee directs the Administrator to provide a 
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 
30, 2014, on the Administrator's implementation plan for the 
CSTART. Such plan should be developed in consultation with the 
Department of Energy's Departmental Security Committee and 
should discuss the roles, missions, functions, 
responsibilities, and personnel assigned to the CSTART, as well 
as actions to be taken to implement the CSTART and timelines 
for such actions.

Plan for Public-Private Partnerships

    The committee believes that recent experience at the Kansas 
City Plant, the Y-12 National Security Complex, and elsewhere 
around the nuclear security enterprise shows that public-
private partnerships can be a useful tool in quickly and 
efficiently executing non-nuclear construction projects. 
However, the committee notes the October 2009 report by the 
Comptroller General of the United States on the Kansas City 
Plant concluded that National Nuclear Security Administration 
``officials acknowledge that while leasing a facility through 
the General Services Administration under a 20-year scenario is 
less costly than purchasing, it can be more costly over the 
longer term.'' The committee also notes the value of building 
new facilities through public-private partnerships, which can 
enable workers to quickly relocate from decaying, antiquated 
buildings to modern office and non-nuclear laboratory spaces 
while also enabling a reduction in deferred maintenance 
backlogs.
    The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear 
Security to submit a plan to the congressional defense 
committees by February 1, 2015, describing at least two public-
private partnerships the Administrator will seek to enter into 
to build modern, non-nuclear facilities for the nuclear 
security enterprise. This plan should discuss the benefits, 
risks, costs and cost savings over the life of the facility, 
timelines, and effects on the deferred maintenance backlog 
associated with carrying out the projects as compared to a 
program plan that does not carry out the projects.

Weapons Activities and budget prioritization

    The budget request contained $8.3 billion for the Weapons 
Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA). These programs support NNSA's central mission of 
ensuring and sustaining the safety, security, reliability, and 
credibility of the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile.
    Within Weapons Activities, the committee continues to 
believe NNSA must emphasize programs and capabilities that 
directly support NNSA's deliverables to the Department of 
Defense. To ensure this emphasis, the committee recommends 
several adjustments to the budget request for Weapons 
Activities, as reflected in the accompanying tables. In 
particular, the committee recommends increases, discussed 
elsewhere in this title, for several life extension programs 
(LEP). Furthermore, the committee recommends $17.0 million, an 
increase of $7.6 million, to accelerate NNSA's cruise missile 
warhead life extension program.
    The committee also recommends $166.6 million for the W88 
Alt 370, an increase of $1.2 million to support the study of 
options for refresh of conventional high explosives required 
elsewhere in this title.
    The committee recommends $363.2 million for Production 
Support, an increase of $12.3 million, to support sustainment 
and recapitalization of key production equipment and $212.5 
million for R&D Certification and Safety, an increase of $11.0 
million, to support technology maturation for LEPs and limited 
life component development. The committee also recommends 
$172.9 million for Plutonium Sustainment, an increase of $28.3 
million, to support efforts to deliver a responsive plutonium 
infrastructure as required elsewhere in this title.
    The committee recommends $54.4 million for Enhanced Surety, 
an increase of $2.4 million, to support continued development 
of safety, security, and use-control technologies and $41.4 
million for Enhanced Surveillance, an increase of $3.6 million, 
to accelerate development of tools and methods for predicting 
aging effects.
    The committee recommends $182.4 million for Nuclear 
Counterterrorism Incident Response, an increase of $9.0 
million, to better support Department of Defense needs for 
NNSA's nuclear expertise in support of this critical national 
security mission.
    Overall, the committee recommends $8.5 billion for Weapons 
Activities, an increase of $147.7 million to the budget 
request.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation


Adopting the Gold Standard for section 123 agreements

    The committee continues to support agreements made in 
accordance with section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
(Public Law 83-703), which include ``the Gold Standard'' 
commitment, as exemplified by the nuclear cooperation agreement 
between the United States and the United Arab Emirates. The 
Gold Standard represents a binding legal restriction on uranium 
enrichment and reprocessing as a condition for concluding 
nuclear cooperation agreements, and it remains an important 
component of effective nuclear nonproliferation leadership for 
reducing longer-term nuclear proliferation risks. However, the 
committee is concerned that the Administration no longer 
prioritizes the inclusion of this standard as a condition for 
nuclear cooperation agreements and has shifted to an ad hoc 
approach.
    The committee remains concerned that the Administration 
does not require the Gold Standard in all new and renegotiated 
123 agreements. The committee believes this weakens U.S. 
nonproliferation leadership and leverage to limit the potential 
spread of the knowledge, technology, and material required to 
enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium. The committee notes 
that enriched uranium and reprocessed spent nuclear fuel can be 
used to produce significant stockpiles of fissile material for 
both peaceful and military purposes. The resulting increase of 
fissile material could be used by a state to make nuclear 
weapons or become vulnerable to diversion or theft by 
terrorists, increasing risks to international and regional 
security. To preclude such scenarios and the potential increase 
in the number of latent nuclear weapons states, the committee 
believes the Gold Standard represents an important legally 
binding commitment by a foreign country to forgo uranium 
enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, and is an important 
indicator of such country's commitment to nuclear 
nonproliferation.

Explanation of Funding Adjustments for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

    The budget request contained $1.6 billion for Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN). Of this amount, $333.5 million 
was requested for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative 
(GTRI), $360.8 million for Nonproliferation Research and 
Development (R&D), $141.4 million for Nonproliferation and 
International Security (NIS), $305.5 million for International 
Material Protection and Cooperation (IMPC), and $311.1 million 
for Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD).
    The committee recommends $413.5 million for GTRI, an 
increase of $80.0 million, to accelerate the clean-out and 
security upgrades in countries other than Russia to minimize 
the risk of theft of diversion of vulnerable fissile material. 
The committee recommends $430.8 million for Nonproliferation 
R&D, an increase of $70.0 million, and $177.8 million for NIS, 
an increase of $36.4 million, to support additional 
verification work, including research and development of next-
generation verification and remote sensing technology, and the 
development of a national verification roadmap as recommended 
in the January 2014 Defense Science Board report on Assessment 
of Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies.
    The committee believes that no DNN funds for fiscal year 
2015 should be authorized for activities with the Russian 
Federation based on ongoing Russian aggression towards Ukraine. 
Therefore, the committee recommends $129.1 million for IMPC, a 
decrease of $176.4 million. The decrease of $176.4 million for 
IMPC includes a reduction of $83.4 million for programs with 
Russia and a reduction of $93.0 million for Second Line of 
Defense (SLD). Also within IMPC, the committee recommends $21.5 
million for SLD for mobile detection systems. The committee 
questions the value of fixed detection units at major border 
crossings and ports in deterring and intercepting nuclear 
weapons-usable material, and believes SLD funds could be better 
allocated towards mobile detection capabilities to reduce the 
risk of nuclear terrorism.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a total of $1.6 billion 
for DNN. Of this amount, the committee recommends $413.5 
million for GTRI, $430.8 million for Nonproliferation R&D, 
$177.8 million for NIS, $129.1 million for IMPC, and $311.1 
million for FMD.

Nuclear Security Summit 2014

    The committee recognizes the importance of the 2014 Nuclear 
Security Summit, which occurred in The Netherlands on March 24-
25, 2014, in bringing together the international community to 
focus on and address efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear 
terrorism. Such efforts have resulted in 13 countries 
eliminating their stocks of nuclear weapons-grade materials.
    The committee commends the Government of Japan for its 
announcement at the 2014 summit that it plans to transfer more 
than 700 pounds of weapons-usable plutonium and a large 
quantity of highly enriched uranium to the United States for 
disposition. This material is sufficient to make dozens of 
nuclear weapons if stolen or diverted. The committee believes 
the increased participation of foreign governments in the 
summit is important, particularly to increase recognition of 
the threat of nuclear terrorism and the need to secure 
vulnerable nuclear material and radioactive sources, as well as 
develop nuclear forensics capabilities.
    The Nuclear Security Guidelines adopted at the summit are 
an important step toward adopting and implementing universal 
safety standards designed to secure nuclear and radioactive 
material. While the committee acknowledges that 35 of the 
participating nations agreed to adopt the Nuclear Security 
Guidelines, the committee encourages the U.S. Government to 
continue engaging with the remaining 18 participating nations 
to also adopt the guidelines. The committee believes effective 
prevention of the threat of nuclear terrorism requires all 
nations to adopt and follow the Nuclear Security Guidelines.

                             Naval Reactors


Briefing on requirements and gaps for preserving the capability to 
        study the use of Low-Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors

    The committee notes that the report submitted in January 
2014 by the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, on the 
potential of using low-enriched uranium (LEU) in place of 
highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in naval nuclear propulsion 
systems found that ``while it may be feasible to replace HEU 
fuel with LEU fuel in current U.S. Naval reactor plants, it is 
not economical or practical to do so.'' The report notes that 
``substituting LEU for HEU would fundamentally decrease reactor 
energy density, increase lifecycle and operating costs, 
increase operational radiation exposure, and increase the 
volume of radioactive wastes.''
    The report also states that ``recent work has shown that 
the potential exists to develop an advanced fuel system that 
could increase uranium loading beyond what is practical today 
while meeting the rigorous performance requirements for naval 
reactors'' and that ``the capability to develop advanced naval 
fuel resides within a small cadre of highly specialized, 
experienced, and qualified engineers and scientists.'' The 
report also notes that ``the investment to develop a fuel 
technology and determine its viability is estimated to be up to 
$2 billion over at least 10 to 15 years.''
    The committee directs the Director, Naval Nuclear 
Propulsion Program, to provide a briefing to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
by March 1, 2015, on the requirements and costs to maintain the 
capability to develop an advanced fuel system, including the 
near-term gaps and investments in research and development that 
would be required to preserve the technical capability to do so 
once ongoing new design work is complete.

Naval Reactors

    The budget request contained $1.4 billion for the Naval 
Reactors program. Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects 
of naval nuclear propulsion efforts, including reactor plant 
technology design and development, reactor plant operation and 
maintenance, and reactor retirement and disposal. The program 
ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in 
nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers that comprise 
over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants.
    The committee is concerned that, due to funding challenges, 
Naval Reactors may be unable to execute key aspects of its 
mission to enable the nuclear Navy. In particular, in testimony 
before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on April 8, 2014, 
the Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program noted that 
the program delayed purchase of a high-performance computer, 
``that is needed to deliver the Ohio-class Replacement reactor 
design on time ... Cancelling this computer purchase in fiscal 
year 2014 has resulted in at least a 6-month delay to reactor 
core manufacturing, impacting the Ohio-class replacement lead-
ship construction schedule.'' The Director also noted that, 
``Naval Reactors will be required to shut down one of the two 
prototype reactor plants in upstate New York during the second 
quarter of fiscal year 2015 due to insufficient maintenance 
funding. This shutdown results in 450 sailors that will not be 
trained and will not be sent to the Fleet next year.''
    The committee believes that these impacts, if realized, 
would be unacceptable to Navy operations. Most critically, a 6-
month delay to the Ohio-class replacement submarine jeopardizes 
the Navy's ability to fulfill U.S. Strategic Command's at-sea 
deterrence requirements in the 2030s. The committee notes that 
the Director has stated that the full fiscal year 2015 budget 
request for Naval Reactors is essential to mitigating these 
impacts.
    The committee recommends $1.4 billion for the Naval 
Reactors program, an increase of $10.0 million the budget 
request.

Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project

    The budget request for Naval Reactors includes $141.1 
million for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project 
(SFHP). Authorized in fiscal year 2014, this project will 
replace the Expended Core Facility (ECF) in Idaho currently 
used for receipt, inspection, and packaging of expended naval 
nuclear reactor cores. In testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces on April 8, 2014, the Director of the Naval 
Nuclear Propulsion Program noted that, ``The existing ECF is 
more than 55 years old and the water pool that stores naval 
spent nuclear fuel is the oldest pool of its type in the 
nation. This old facility is showing accelerating signs of 
deterioration, including leaking water pool walls and cracked 
floors.''
    The committee is concerned that, while it continues to be 
operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, due 
to its age and accompanying sustainment challenges, the ECF may 
suffer an irreparable failure at any time. Such a failure would 
have major and immediate impacts on Naval Reactors' ability to 
support the Navy's nuclear reactor refueling and defueling 
schedules.
    Furthermore, the existing ECF is incapable of receiving and 
processing full-length aircraft carrier spent nuclear fuel. 
Until the new facility is built, the Navy will be required to 
purchase additional M-290 shipping containers to temporarily 
store this spent fuel as it is removed from aircraft carriers. 
This will result in additional, unexpected costs to the Navy of 
$100.0 to $150.0 million per year for each year of delay. The 
committee believes the most cost-effective approach is to fully 
fund the SFHP and thereby avoid forcing this unnecessary 
expense on the Navy.
    The committee agrees with the Director's April 8, 2014, 
testimony when he said, ``To put simply, it is costing the 
country more to delay this facility than it is to just get on 
with building it,'' and, ``The fiscal year 2015 request for the 
SFHP is essential to the operational availability of aircraft 
carriers and submarines.'' Therefore, the committee recommends 
$141.1 million for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization 
Project, the amount of the budget request.

                      Office of the Administrator


Improvements to National Nuclear Security Administration budget 
        structure

    The committee notes the ongoing, collaborative effort 
between the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), 
the White House Office of Management and Budget, and Congress 
to update and streamline NNSA's budget structure to provide 
better transparency, increased flexibility, and greater focus 
on NNSA's mission and priorities. The committee is encouraged 
by this effort and believes, if carefully considered with input 
from all stakeholders, increased efficiency and agility can be 
achieved for NNSA programs while also ensuring robust 
transparency and accountability. The committee expects the 
Administrator to consult closely with the committee as budget 
structure changes are considered during the development of the 
fiscal year 2016 budget request.

Reorganization and reform

    In the past year, the Department of Energy and the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have continued to make 
organizational changes intended to more effectively and 
efficiently manage programs (particularly large nuclear 
infrastructure projects) and address chronic problems related 
to security, safety, duplicative and inconsistent inspections 
and policies, and confused lines of authority, responsibility, 
and accountability. These reorganization efforts are expected 
to continue into fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
    The committee continues to be skeptical that reorganization 
efforts will lead to the fundamental and lasting change 
required to remedy the myriad problems with governance, 
management, and oversight of the nuclear security enterprise. 
The committee notes that only 2 years ago, in March 2012, NNSA 
created the Office of Infrastructure and Operations (NA-00), 
and in 2013 assigned this office responsibilities related to 
security inspections, security operations, and security 
budgets. Subsequently, in December 2013 these security 
functions were removed from NA-00 and distributed among several 
new and reformed offices under the Chief of Defense Nuclear 
Security, the new Department of Energy Office of Independent 
Enterprise Assessments, a new Departmental Security Committee, 
and supporting offices under the newly created Department of 
Energy Under Secretary for Management and Performance.
    The committee understands that these shifts resulted from 
new senior leaders at the Department of Energy and NNSA, and 
recognize and appreciate that active measures are being taken 
to address these longstanding problems. However, past 
experiences at Department of Energy and NNSA have shown that 
reorganizations initiated by time- and attention-constrained 
senior leaders have had little effect on the intractable 
bureaucratic culture within Department of Energy and NNSA. The 
committee continues to be concerned with the long-term failure 
to implement meaningful and effective changes when the problems 
and possible solutions have been so thoroughly studied by so 
many groups.
    On the other hand, the committee is guardedly hopeful to 
see Department of Energy/NNSA's security reforms include 
separation of security policy and security inspection 
functions, as well as clarification and simplification of lines 
of authority, responsibility, and accountability. 
Recommendations for these two actions have been a part of 
security reviews for over a decade, and the need for their 
implementation is urgent.
    This summer, the committee expects to receive the final 
report of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of 
the Nuclear Security Enterprise created by section 3166 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 
Law 112-239). The committee encourages senior policymakers in 
the Administration and in Congress to keep sustained and in-
depth attention on reform efforts. Strong leadership and robust 
actions are required now and into the foreseeable future. The 
committee will continue its oversight of these matters.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $6.1 billion for environmental 
and other defense activities for fiscal year 2015. The 
committee recommends $5.6 billion, a decrease of $451.7 million 
to the budget request.

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup


Environmental Management technology development program

    The budget request contained $13.0 million for the 
technology development program of the Office of Environmental 
Management. This program provides key investments to mid- and 
long-term research and development projects that seek to 
develop and mature technologies to reduce cleanup costs and 
accelerate cleanup schedules.
    Because the defense environmental cleanup program is 
expected to cost approximately $200.0 billion and last until 
2070, the committee believes that the small amounts of funding 
invested in this program have the potential to provide large 
cost savings in the decades to come. Therefore, the committee 
recommends $19.0 million for the technology development 
program, an increase of $6.0 million.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    The committee remains concerned about the incidents and 
contamination that occurred at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
(WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, related to the February 2014 
radiological release and underground fire, and has been closely 
monitoring these events. The committee notes that WIPP remains 
closed to new waste shipments as various investigations and 
reviews continue to identify the source of the contamination, 
the risk of additional events, and potential options to address 
this issue. Those reviews that have concluded have recommended 
a variety of actions to improve operations, oversight, and 
emergency response at WIPP and across the Department of Energy 
complex. The committee expects the Department of Energy to 
seriously consider all such recommendations and take robust 
action to prevent a reoccurrence of either incident.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


          Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations


         Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration

    This section would authorize appropriations for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2015, 
including funds for weapons activities, defense nuclear 
nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and Federal 
Salaries and Expenses (formerly known as the Office of the 
Administrator), at the levels identified in section 4701 of 
division D of this Act. This section would also authorize 
several new plant projects for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration.

              Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup

    This section would authorize appropriations for defense 
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2015, at the 
levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. 
This section would also authorize several new plant projects 
for defense environmental cleanup.

                 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities

    This section would authorize appropriations for other 
defense activities for fiscal year 2015, including funds for 
Health, Safety, and Security, the Office of Legacy Management, 
and Nuclear Energy, of the funds identified in section 4701 of 
division D of this Act.

              Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance

    This section would authorize appropriations for energy 
security and assurance programs for fiscal year 2015, at the 
levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, And Limitations


   Section 3111--Design and Use of Prototypes of Nuclear Weapons for 
                         Intelligence Purposes

    Section 3115 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) established the 
requirement to provide for the design and use of prototypes of 
nuclear weapons to further intelligence estimates with respect 
to foreign nuclear weapons activities.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee noted at the time that this requirement was 
consistent with the recommendations of the Bipartisan 
Congressional Commission of the Strategic Posture of the United 
States. The commission found that: ``A particularly sensitive 
question is whether the laboratories should be permitted to do 
weapons design work in support of this intelligence mission. At 
issue is whether the United States should seek to improve its 
understanding of the feasibility of the weapons design efforts 
of others by replicating those designs in U.S. laboratories. In 
the commission's view, this is possible and this work should be 
permitted. At a time of rising concern about efforts by 
proliferators to develop and improve their nuclear weapons, and 
of nuclear terrorism, such work is indeed critical. Such work 
would not involve the design of new weapons with new military 
characteristics for deployment by the United States. It can and 
should be done in accordance with U.S. policies not to produce 
fissile materials and not to conduct nuclear explosive tests. 
It would be limited to assessing whether adversarial efforts in 
development of new nuclear weapons will result in operational 
capabilities, and what technical, military, political, and 
other consequences might follow from the potential new 
capabilities. Working with partners in the intelligence 
community, the laboratories should be in a position to advise 
national leadership on foreign nuclear weapons activities 
bearing on the interests of the United States and its allies. 
In short, the commission recommends that the laboratories be 
allowed to design, simulate, and experimentally assess foreign 
nuclear weapon designs for the purposes of defensive 
analysis.''
    This section would update that requirement consistent with 
the direction of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear 
Security Administration that such activity implicates a broader 
set of Department of Energy equities than those resident in the 
Administrator of that agency.

Section 3112--Authorized Personnel Levels of National Nuclear Security 
                             Administration

    This section would amend section 3241A of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2441a) to 
require that, by October 1, 2015, the total number of employees 
within the Office of the Administrator may not exceed 1,650.
    With the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the 
Administration proposes changing the name of the ``Office of 
the Administrator'' account to ``Federal Salaries and 
Expenses''. This section would also clarify that, for the 
purposes of section 3241A, these terms are considered the same. 
The committee expects the Administrator for Nuclear Security to 
follow past practice for counting the number of employees for 
the purposes of section 3241A.

  Section 3113--Cost Containment for Uranium Capabilities Replacement 
                                Project

    This section would express the sense of Congress that 
regarding the Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project (UCRP):
    (1) A series of statements and policy documents from the 
Administration have identified the UCRP as a critical nuclear 
modernization priority;
    (2) The failure of the Department of Energy and the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to successfully and 
efficiently execute and oversee the UCRP undermines national 
security and jeopardizes the long-term credibility of the 
nuclear deterrent;
    (3) The April 8, 2014, testimony of the Acting 
Administrator for Nuclear Security that ``close to half'' of 
the $1.2 billion taxpayers have spent on the design of such 
project has been wasted is a grievous misuse of limited 
taxpayer funds, and the appropriate officials of the Federal 
Government and contractors must be held accountable;
    (4) The uranium capabilities and modern infrastructure that 
are to be provided by all three phases of the UCRP are critical 
to national security and Congress fully supports efforts to 
deliver all of these capabilities efficiently and 
expeditiously;
    (5) Focused attention and robust leadership from the 
highest levels of the executive branch and Congress are 
required to ensure that the UCRP delivers such critical 
national security capabilities; and
    (6) The Secretary and the Administrator must ensure that 
lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability for the 
UCRP are clear going forward.
    This section would also amend section 3123 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), as amended by section 3126 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 1130966) to 
clarify that the Secretary of Energy may adjust the statutory 
cost cap of $4.2 billion for Phase I of the UCRP if, by March 
15, 2015, the Secretary of Energy submits to the congressional 
defense committees a detailed justification for such 
adjustment. This justification would be required to include: 
the amount of the adjustment and the proposed total cost of 
Phase I; a description of the changes that would be required to 
the UCRP if Phase I were restricted to a total cost of $4.2 
billion; a detailed description of accountability actions taken 
with respect to contractors and Federal employees; a 
description of the clear lines of responsibility, authority, 
and accountability for UCRP going forward; and a detailed 
description of the structural reforms planned or implemented by 
the Secretary of Energy to ensure Phase I is executed on time 
and on schedule.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Energy to 
certify to the congressional defense committees and the 
Secretary of Defense by March 1 of each year through 2025 that 
Phase I of the UCRP will meet the cost limitation of $4.2 
billion (as adjusted) and that the UCRP will enable uranium 
operations in building 9212 of the Y-12 National Security 
Complex to cease by 2025 while uranium operations begin in a 
new facility constructed under the UCRP by 2025. If the 
Secretary of Energy does not make such a certification by March 
1 in any year, the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council 
would be required to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees that identifies the resources of the 
Department of Energy that the chairman determines should be 
redirected to enable the Department of Energy to meet the cost 
and schedule targets.
    Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Energy 
and the Secretary of the Navy to jointly submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, on 
implementation of section 3123(e) of Public Law 112-239, as 
amended. This report would be required to include a description 
of the program management, oversight, design, and other 
responsibilities for UCRP given to the Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the funding provided by the 
Secretary of Energy to NAVFAC to carry out these 
responsibilities.

            Section 3114--Plutonium Pit Production Capacity

    This section would make a series of findings related to the 
Administration's projections to achieve the required capacity 
to produce 50 to 80 plutonium pits by certain years. This 
section would also state the sense of Congress that: (1) the 
requirement to create a modern, responsive nuclear 
infrastructure that includes the capability and capacity to 
produce, at minimum, 50 to 80 pits per year, is a national 
security priority; (2) delaying creation of a modern, 
responsive nuclear infrastructure until the 2030s is an 
unacceptable risk to the nuclear deterrent and the national 
security of the United States; and (3) timelines for creating 
certain capacities for production of plutonium pits and other 
nuclear weapons components must be driven by the requirement to 
hedge against technical and geopolitical risk and not solely by 
the needs of life extension programs.
    This section would also add a new section to title 42 of 
the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to require the 
Secretary of Energy to ensure that the nuclear security 
enterprise produces at least 30 war reserve pits during 2023, 
at least 50 war reserve pits during 2026, and, during a pilot 
period of at least 90 days during 2027, demonstrate the 
capability to produce war reserve pits at a rate sufficient to 
produce 80 pits per year. The Secretary of Energy would be 
required to certify to the congressional defense committees and 
the Secretary of Defense by March 1 of each year until 2027 
that the programs and budget of the Department of Energy will 
meet these pit production milestones. If the Secretary of 
Energy is unable to make such a certification in any year, the 
Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council would be required to 
submit a plan to the congressional defense committees by May 1 
of such year. This plan would be required to include 
identification of the resources of the Department of Energy 
that the chairman determines should be redirected to enable the 
nuclear security enterprise to meet the pit production 
milestones described by this section.
    The committee is concerned that, despite the President's 
policy to create a responsive nuclear infrastructure to enable 
nuclear stockpile reductions without undue risk, the Department 
of Energy continues to slip schedules and programs needed to 
achieve this critical national security goal. With the proposed 
deferral of the first interoperable warhead, the Department has 
concurrently proposed to defer plans to achieve the Secretary 
of Defense's revalidated requirement for a plutonium pit 
production capacity of 50 to 80 pits per year. As a key 
component of a responsive nuclear infrastructure, continued 
delay in achieving this pit production capacity is 
unacceptable. The committee believes that waiting over 15 years 
to achieve a responsive nuclear infrastructure is too great a 
risk to national security.

 Section 3115--Definition of Baseline and Threshold for Stockpile Life 
                           Extension Project

    This section would amend section 4713 of the Atomic Energy 
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2753) to clarify that the cost and 
schedule baseline of a nuclear stockpile life extension project 
established pursuant to such section shall be the cost and 
schedule contained in the weapon design and cost report 
required prior to the project entering into the development 
engineering phase.
    This section would also lower the threshold for 
congressional notification on costs per warhead exceeding the 
baseline from 200 percent to 150 percent.

  Section 3116--Production of Nuclear Warhead for Long-Range Standoff 
                                 Weapon

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
deliver a first production unit for a nuclear warhead for the 
long-range standoff weapon not later than September 30, 2025. 
This section would also require the Secretary of Energy and the 
Secretary of Defense to jointly develop a plan to carry out 
this mandate and require the Secretaries to submit this plan to 
the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Energy, 
should the Secretary determine at any time that a first 
production unit will not be delivered by September 30, 2025, to 
notify the congressional defense committees, the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command of such 
determination, including an explanation for why delivery will 
not occur by such date. If the Secretary of Energy makes such a 
notification, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command would be 
required to submit an assessment to the congressional defense 
committees regarding the effects of such delay on national 
security and nuclear deterrence and assurance, as well as any 
mitigation options available.
    Finally, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Strategic 
Command, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense 
committees not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act on the justification for the long-range 
standoff weapon.
    The committee believes the proposed 3-year deferral of this 
cruise missile is contrary to the interests of national 
security. Therefore, the committee recommends this provision to 
ensure warhead production for this cruise missile is deferred 
only 1 year.

         Section 3117--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
specifically carry out construction and program support 
activities with fiscal year 2015 funds authorized for the Mixed 
Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) for construction and 
program support activities. Program support activities are 
defined as those activities in support of the design, long-lead 
equipment, procurement, and site preparation for the MFFF.
    If the Secretary of Energy determines that fiscal year 2015 
funds for construction and program support activities 
associated with MFFF should be used for a purpose other than 
construction and program support activities for MFFF, the 
Secretary may utilize reprogramming guidance in accordance with 
established procedures provided to the Department of Energy 
defense-related program in section 4702 of the Atomic Energy 
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2742).
    This section would also require the Secretary to enter into 
a contract with a federally funded research and development 
center (FFRDC) not later than 30 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act to conduct a study to assess and validate 
the Department of Energy's analysis of options for the 
disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The Secretary 
shall then submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees not later than 270 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act. The report shall include the FFRDC 
assessment, as well as the Department's identification and 
discussion of the life-cycle cost analyses, and explanation of 
how the alternatives conform with the Plutonium Management and 
Disposition Agreement between the Governments of the United 
States and the Russian Federation.

  Section 3118--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the 
                   Administrator for Nuclear Security

    This section would limit the availability of funds 
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 
available for fiscal year 2015 for the National Nuclear 
Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of the Administrator to 
not more than 75 percent until several statutorily required 
reports are submitted to certain congressional committees in 
2015. These include:
    (1) The report on stockpile assessments required under 
section 4205(f)(2) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 
2525(f)(2));
    (2) The Secretary of Energy's portion of the report 
required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81);
    (3) The annual assessment required under section 3122 of 
Public Law 112-81; and
    (4) The detailed report on the stockpile stewardship, 
management, and infrastructure plan required by section 4203(b) 
of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2523(b)).
    The committee notes that in past years, the NNSA has not 
submitted several key statutorily required reports in a timely 
fashion, or in certain cases, at all. The committee is pleased 
that section 3115 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) appears to have provided 
NNSA the necessary incentive to submit these reports in a 
timely way in 2014. The committee therefore recommends a 
similar section for inclusion in this Act to ensure timely 
submission is continued into 2015. The committee believes these 
reports are critical to effective congressional oversight of 
the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile, NNSA programs, and the Administration's plans for 
the stockpile and enterprise.

Section 3119--Additional Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office 
               of the Administrator for Nuclear Security

    This section would limit the availability of funds, in 
addition to a limitation included elsewhere in this title, 
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 
available for fiscal year 2015 for the National Nuclear 
Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of the Administrator to 
not more than 90 percent until the date on which the 
Administrator for Nuclear Security submits to the congressional 
defense committees a report on the efficiencies proposed by the 
2012 Joint Department of Energy/Department of Defense Study on 
Potential NNSA Management and Work Force Prioritization 
Efficiencies. The report would be required to include details 
on how the Administrator will carry out each efficiency measure 
proposed by the joint study during fiscal year 2015.
    This section would also require the Nuclear Weapons Council 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2015, on the efficiencies that the Council recommends 
the Administrator carry out during fiscal year 2016. The 
council would also be required to include in the report the 
council's assessment of the reports submitted by the 
Administrator and the Comptroller General of the United States 
pursuant to section 3123 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), as well as the 
council's assessment of each of the matters contained in 
subsection 3123(a)(2) of Public Law 112-81.
    The committee notes that, in the fiscal year 2014 budget 
request, NNSA proposed to find $320.0 million in management and 
workforce prioritization efficiencies and use these savings to 
fund high priority nuclear modernization programs. These 
proposed efficiencies were based upon a joint study conducted 
by, and agreed to by, both the Department of Defense and NNSA. 
On May 9, 2013, the Acting Administrator for Nuclear Security 
testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that, 
``if we were unable to realize all of the efficiencies that we 
have assumed in fiscal [year] 2014, 5-year budget, we 
definitely would have to . . . go back and rethink how we are 
going to execute the programs we have.'' In the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee expressed 
its concern that these efficiencies would not be achieved and 
major impacts to critical nuclear modernization programs would 
result.
    The most recent information provided to the committee by 
NNSA indicates that only $80.0 million of these efficiencies 
will actually be realized in fiscal year 2014, while $240.0 
million will not. The committee believes NNSA's inability or 
unwillingness to aggressively pursue savings through 
efficiencies it agreed to in 2012 have directly contributed to 
forcing schedule slips in critical programs due to insufficient 
funding. Therefore, the committee recommends this section and 
expects NNSA and the Nuclear Weapons Council to aggressively 
seek efficiencies in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 to 
ensure high priority defense programs stay on track.

Section 3120--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Non-Proliferation 
    Activities Between the United States and the Russian Federation

    This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2015 
funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for any 
contact, cooperation, or transfer of technology between the 
United States and the Russian Federation until the Secretary of 
Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of State and 
Secretary of Defense, certifies to the appropriate 
congressional committees that the Russian Federation is 
respecting the sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, no longer 
acting inconsistently with the Intermediate-range Nuclear 
Forces Treaty, and in compliance with the Treaty on 
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The section would include 
a waiver for the Secretary of Energy, pending a notification, 
in coordination with the Secretary of State and Secretary of 
Defense, to the appropriate congressional committees that such 
contact, cooperation, or technology transfer is in the national 
interests of the United States and a period of 30 days has 
elapsed following the notification.
    The committee notes that at the time that this report was 
filed, in response to ongoing Russian aggression toward 
Ukraine, the Secretary of Energy has suspended nuclear security 
cooperation. Similar to the position the committee has stated 
elsewhere in this report, the committee believes that U.S.-
Russia nuclear security cooperation must remain suspended so 
long as Russia continues its aggression toward Ukraine and 
continues to take actions inconsistent with its treaty 
obligations.

 Section 3121--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defense Nuclear 
       Nonproliferation Activities at Sites in Russian Federation

    This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2015 
funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for any 
defense nuclear nonproliferation activities at sites in the 
Russian Federation until at least 30 days have elapsed 
following the date that the Secretary of Energy certifies to 
the appropriate congressional committees that such sites are 
not actively engaged in Russian nuclear weapons, intelligence, 
or defense activities. This section would include a waiver for 
the President to submit a notification that such a waiver is in 
the national interests of the United States and that none of 
the funds will be contributed to Russia`s nuclear weapons 
program, and a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date 
of the notification.

                     Subtitle C--Plans and Reports


   Section 3131--Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation by National 
                    Nuclear Security Administration

    This section would amend section 3221(h) of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2411) to clarify 
that the term ``Administration'', with respect to any 
authority, duty, or responsibility provided by section 3211, 
does not include the Office of Naval Reactors.

     Section 3132--Analysis and Report on W88 Alt 370 Program High 
                           Explosives Options

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, the 
Administrator for Nuclear Security, and the Chairman of the 
Nuclear Weapons Council to submit a joint report to the 
congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act on the W88 Alt 370 nuclear warhead 
program. The report would be required to contain analysis of 
the costs, benefits, risks, and feasibility of both including 
and not including a refresh of the conventional high explosives 
of the W88 warhead as part of the W88 Alt 370 program.
    The report would be required to include, for each option:
    (1) Near-term and lifecycle cost estimates, including costs 
to both the Navy and the National Nuclear Security 
Administration;
    (2) Potential cost avoidance;
    (3) Operational effects to the Navy and to the capacity and 
throughput of the nuclear security enterprise of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration;
    (4) The expected longevity of the W88 warhead;
    (5) Near-term and long-term safety and security risks, as 
well as potential risk-mitigation measures; and
    (6) Any other matters the Secretary, the Administrator, or 
the Chairman considers appropriate.
    The committee expects the Nuclear Weapons Council to arrive 
at a decision regarding whether or not to include a refresh of 
the conventional high explosives as part of the W88 Alt 370 
program in time to inform the budget request for fiscal year 
2016.

             Section 3133--Analysis of Existing Facilities

    This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear 
Security to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees not later than 270 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act containing analysis of using or modifying 
existing facilities across the nuclear security enterprise to 
support the plutonium strategy of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The report would be required to include an 
analysis of the costs, benefits, cost-savings, risks, and 
effects of using or modifying existing facilities as compared 
to the carrying out all phases of the Administrator's current 
plan for the plutonium strategy. The report may also include 
such other matters as the Administrator determines appropriate.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


    Section 3141--Technical Corrections to Atomic Energy Defense Act

    This section would make technical corrections to the Atomic 
Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501).

   Section 3142--Technical Corrections to National Nuclear Security 
                           Administration Act

    This section would make technical corrections to section 
3220 (50 U.S.C. 2410) and section 3236 (50 U.S.C. 2426) of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration Act.

          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $30.2 million for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2015. The 
committee recommends $30.2 million, the amount of the budget 
request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                      Section 3201--Authorization

    This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2015.

 Section 3202--Inspector General of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
                                 Board

    This section would amend section 322 of the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286k(a)) to mandate that the Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall serve as the 
Inspector General of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board, in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 
U.S.C. App).

Section 3203--Number of Employees of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
                                 Board

    This section would amend section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286b(b)(1)(A)) to limit the 
number of full-time employees of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board to 120. This section would specify that this limit 
would take effect on October 1, 2015.

                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize $19.9 million for fiscal year 
2015 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and 
Oil Reserves.

                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                Obsolete Vessel ``Best Value'' Contracts

    The committee notes that the Maritime Administration 
(MARAD) disposes of obsolete vessels pursuant to ``best value'' 
contracts. On February 12, 2014, the Government Accountability 
Office released a report assessing MARAD's ship disposal 
program which indicated, ``(a)lmost all of the contractors were 
unsure as to how MARAD determines best value under sales 
contracts. Most of the contractors told us that they did not 
always understand why they lost a ship recycling contract. 
Three contractors noted it was particularly confusing when they 
offered the best price with what they believed to be a 
reasonable schedule compared to other contractors, yet still 
lost the contract. A couple admitted that there were instances 
where they did not understand why they won a contract.'' The 
committee believes that MARAD should provide better definition 
as to the selection procedures associated with ``best value'' 
contracts.
    The committee is also concerned about the lack of 
transparency associated with the amounts of appropriated funds 
expended and sales accrued and disbursed through the ship 
disposal program.
    Therefore, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
provide the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by March 1, 2015 a report on the ship disposal 
program that:
    (1) Provides a 5-year program projection for vessel 
scrapping under the ship disposal program, and an estimate of 
the vessels remaining at the end of that 5-year period;
    (2) Compares the MARAD ship disposal program with other 
federal ship disposal programs;
    (3) Explains the criteria MARAD uses in determining ``best 
value'' when evaluating ship disposal procurement proposals, 
and the relative ranking of the importance of each of those 
criteria;
    (4) Provides a detailed explanation of amounts appropriated 
and expended in carrying out in the ship disposal program, and 
of amount received and disbursed from the sales of vessels 
disposed of through that program over the previous 5 fiscal 
years.

    Recapitalization of the U.S. Maritime Ready Reserve Force Fleet

    The committee believes it is in the interest of U.S. 
national security that the U.S. merchant marine, both ships and 
mariners, serve as a national auxiliary in times of war or 
national emergency. The Ready Reserve Force of the U.S. 
Maritime Administration, a component of the National Defense 
Reserve Fleet, plays an important role in U.S. national 
security by providing necessary readiness and efficiency in the 
form of a government-owned sealift fleet. The committee 
believes it is important that the Ready Reserve Force fleet 
remains capable, modern, and efficient in order to best serve 
the national security needs of the United States in times of 
war or national emergency. Accordingly, the committee directs 
the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command to brief the House 
Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2014, on the 
options considered to modernize and recapitalize the Ready 
Reserve Force fleet and on the Commander's recommended path 
forward.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


  Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National Security 
          Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2015

    This section would authorize appropriations for the 
national security aspects of the merchant marine for fiscal 
year 2015.

                  Section 3502--Special Rule for DD-17

    This section would limit the application of section 55102 
of title 46, United States Code to Drydock-17 (formerly known 
as USN-YFD-17) in the waters of the State of Alabama.

   Section 3503--Sense of Congress on the Role of Domestic Maritime 
                     Industry in National Security

    This section would express the sense of Congress regarding 
the role of domestic maritime industry in national security.

                       DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES

        Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables

    This section would provide for the allocation of funds 
among programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the 
tables in division D of this Act, subject to reprogramming 
guidance in accordance with established procedures.
    Consistent with the previously expressed views of the 
committee, this section would also require that a decision by 
an Agency Head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a 
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on 
merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the 
requirements of section 2304(k) and section 2374 of title 10, 
United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law.

                         SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
                                            (In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       House          House
                                                                   FY 2015 Request     Change       Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
 
                                  National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request
 
                                  Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
 
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
 
Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army.......................................       5,102,685       147,400       5,250,085
Missile Procurement, Army........................................       1,017,483                     1,017,483
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..........................       1,471,438       230,298       1,701,736
Procurement of Ammunition, Army..................................       1,031,477       -23,400       1,008,077
Other Procurement, Army..........................................       4,893,634      -192,400       4,701,234
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund....................         115,058      -115,058               0
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.......................................      13,074,317       411,600      13,485,917
Weapons Procurement, Navy........................................       3,217,945        63,000       3,280,945
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps...................         771,945                       771,945
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy..................................      14,400,625       659,600      15,060,225
Other Procurement, Navy..........................................       5,975,828       222,300       6,198,128
Procurement, Marine Corps........................................         983,352       -25,100         958,252
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..................................      11,542,571      -122,671      11,419,900
Missile Procurement, Air Force...................................       4,690,506       132,000       4,822,506
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.............................         677,400                       677,400
Other Procurement, Air Force.....................................      16,566,018       -64,000      16,502,018
Procurement, Defense-Wide........................................       4,221,437       172,100       4,393,537
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund..............................          20,000       -20,000               0
Prior Year Rescissions...........................................        -265,685       265,685               0
Undistributed General Provisions.................................               0      -265,685        -265,685
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement...................................      89,508,034     1,475,669      90,983,703
 
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army...................       6,593,898       -13,896       6,580,002
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy...................      16,266,335       -82,500      16,183,835
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force..............      23,739,892       125,500      23,865,392
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide...........      16,766,084       223,348      16,989,432
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense...........................         167,738         5,000         172,738
Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...      63,533,947       257,452      63,791,399
 
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army....................................      33,240,148      -369,100      32,871,048
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve............................       2,490,569        11,300       2,501,869
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard.....................       6,030,773       182,800       6,213,573
Operation & Maintenance, Navy....................................      39,025,857      -143,052      38,882,805
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps............................       5,909,487       -56,700       5,852,787
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve............................       1,007,100        -2,800       1,004,300
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve....................         268,582        -2,600         265,982
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force...............................      35,331,193      -180,129      35,151,064
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.......................       3,015,842       -16,900       2,998,942
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard......................       6,392,859       -19,800       6,373,059
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................      31,198,232      -550,096      30,648,136
US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense................          13,723                        13,723
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid....................         100,000         4,500         104,500
Cooperative Threat Reduction.....................................         365,108       -10,500         354,608
Defense Acquisition Development Workforce Fund...................         212,875        -3,500         209,375
Environmental Restoration, Army..................................         201,560                       201,560
Environmental Restoration, Navy..................................         277,294                       277,294
Environmental Restoration, Air Force.............................         408,716                       408,716
Environmental Restoration, Defense...............................           8,547                         8,547
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites...................         208,353                       208,353
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund....................           5,000        -5,000               0
Support Of International Sporting Competitions, Defense..........          10,000        -4,800           5,200
Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance...................     165,721,818    -1,166,377     164,555,441
 
Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations................................     128,957,593        49,430     129,007,023
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions..............       6,236,092         1,000       6,237,092
Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel...........................     135,193,685        50,430     135,244,115
 
Title XIV--Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army.......................................          13,727                        13,727
Working Capital Fund, Air Force..................................          61,717                        61,717
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide...............................          44,293                        44,293
Working Capital Fund, DECA.......................................       1,114,731       100,000       1,214,731
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction..........................         828,868                       828,868
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities....................         820,687                       820,687
Office of the Inspector General..................................         311,830                       311,830
Defense Health Program...........................................      31,833,061      -387,400      31,445,661
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations........................      35,028,914      -287,400      34,741,514
 
Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations..........     488,986,398       329,774     489,316,172
 
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
 
Military Construction
Army.............................................................         539,427       203,000         742,427
Navy.............................................................       1,018,772       -20,000         998,772
Air Force........................................................         811,774                       811,774
Defense-Wide.....................................................       2,061,890       -29,000       2,032,890
Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense..................          38,715                        38,715
NATO Security Investment Program.................................         199,700                       199,700
Army National Guard..............................................         126,920        34,800         161,720
Army Reserve.....................................................         103,946        60,300         164,246
Navy and Marine Corps Reserve....................................          51,528                        51,528
Air National Guard...............................................          94,663                        94,663
Air Force Reserve................................................          49,492                        49,492
Subtotal, Military Construction..................................       5,096,827       249,100       5,345,927
 
Family Housing
Construction, Army...............................................          78,609                        78,609
Operation & Maintenance, Army....................................         350,976                       350,976
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps..............................          16,412                        16,412
Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps...................         354,029                       354,029
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force...............................         327,747                       327,747
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................          61,100                        61,100
Family Housing Improvement Fund..................................           1,662                         1,662
Subtotal, Family Housing.........................................       1,190,535                     1,190,535
 
Base Realignment and Closure
Base Realignment and Closure--Army...............................          84,417                        84,417
Base Realignment and Closure--Navy...............................          94,692                        94,692
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force..........................          90,976                        90,976
Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure...........................         270,085                       270,085
 
Undistributed Adjustments
Prior Year Savings...............................................               0      -204,577        -204,577
General Reductions...............................................               0       -69,000         -69,000
Subtotal, Undistributed Adjustments..............................               0      -273,577        -273,577
 
Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations..........       6,557,447       -24,477       6,532,970
 
Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military.......................     495,543,845       305,297     495,849,142
 
                                 Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities
 
Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations
 
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Nuclear Energy...................................................         104,000             0         104,000
Weapons Activities...............................................       8,314,902       147,700       8,462,602
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.................................       1,555,156        10,000       1,565,156
Naval Reactors...................................................       1,377,100        10,000       1,387,100
Office of the Administrator......................................         410,842       -24,000         386,842
Defense Environmental Cleanup....................................       5,327,538      -457,000       4,870,538
Other Defense Activities.........................................         753,000         5,300         758,300
Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities.............      17,842,538      -308,000      17,534,538
 
Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board..........................          30,150                        30,150
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization...............          30,150                        30,150
 
Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security           17,872,688      -308,000      17,564,688
 Authorization and Other Authorizations..........................
 
Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities..................      17,872,688      -308,000      17,564,688
 
Total, National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request.............     513,416,533        -2,703     513,413,830
 
National Defense Funding, OCO Budget Request.....................      79,445,000                    79,445,000
 
Total, National Defense..........................................     592,861,533        -2,703     592,858,830
 
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600)...........          63,400                        63,400
Title XIV--Cemeterial Expenses, Army (Function 700)..............          45,800        16,081          61,881
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Function              19,950                        19,950
 270)............................................................
Title XXXV--Maritime Administration (Function 400)...............         148,400                       148,400
 
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD)
Title X--General Transfer Authority..............................      [5,000,000]                   [4,000,000]
Title XV--Special Transfer Authority.............................                                    [3,000,000]
 
MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (NON-ADD)
Defense Production Act...........................................          21,638                        21,638
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
                        (In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FY 2015       House         House
                                    Request       Change     Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the
                        Armed Services Committee
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   495,543,845      305,297   495,849,142
 (051).........................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE    17,872,688     -308,000    17,564,688
 PROGRAMS (053)................
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)--   513,416,533       -2,703   513,413,830
 BASE BILL.....................
TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY        79,445,000                 79,445,000
 OPERATIONS....................
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE..   592,861,533       -2,703   592,858,830
 
    Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the
     Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or Do Not Require
                        Additional Authorization
Defense Production Act                 22,000                     22,000
 Purchases.....................
Indefinite Account: Disposal Of         8,000                      8,000
 DOD Real Property.............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of           31,000                     31,000
 DOD Real Property.............
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function          61,000                     61,000
 051...........................
 
Formerly Utilized Sites               100,000                    100,000
 Remedial Action Program.......
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function         100,000                    100,000
 053...........................
 
Other Discretionary Programs...     7,681,000                  7,681,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function       7,681,000                  7,681,000
 054...........................
Total Defense Discretionary         7,842,000                  7,842,000
 Adjustments (050).............
 
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
Department of Defense--Military   575,049,845      305,297   575,355,142
 (051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense              17,972,688     -308,000    17,664,688
 Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities          7,681,000                  7,681,000
 (054).........................
Total BA Implication, National    600,703,533       -2,703   600,700,830
 Defense Discretionary.........
 
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
Concurrent receipt accrual          7,071,000                  7,071,000
 payments to the Military
 Retirement Fund...............
Revolving, trust and other DOD      1,169,000                  1,169,000
 Mandatory.....................
Offsetting receipts............    -1,591,000                 -1,591,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function       6,649,000                  6,649,000
 051...........................
Energy employees occupational       1,197,000                  1,197,000
 illness compensation programs
 and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function       1,197,000                  1,197,000
 053...........................
Radiation exposure compensation        59,000                     59,000
 trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund        514,000                    514,000
 and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function         573,000                    573,000
 054...........................
Total National Defense              8,419,000                  8,419,000
 Mandatory (050)...............
 
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and
 Mandatory
Department of Defense--Military   581,698,845      305,209   582,004,054
 (051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense              19,169,688     -308,000    18,861,688
 Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities          8,254,000                  8,254,000
 (054).........................
Total BA Implication, National    609,122,533       -2,791   609,119,742
 Defense Discretionary and
 Mandatory.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
 


SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2015 Request              House Change              House Authorized
     Line            Item      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Qty          Cost          Qty           Cost          Qty          Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               AIRCRAFT
                PROCUREMENT,
                ARMY
               FIXED WING
002            UTILITY F/W              1          13,617                                      1          13,617
                AIRCRAFT.
003            AERIAL COMMON           16         185,090                                     16         185,090
                SENSOR (ACS)
                (MIP).
004            MQ-1 UAV.......         19         190,581                     49,000          19         239,581
                   Extended                                                  [49,000]
                   range
                   modificatio
                   ns Per Army
                   UFR.
005            RQ-11 (RAVEN)..                      3,964                                                  3,964
               ROTARY
006            HELICOPTER,             55         416,617                                     55         416,617
                LIGHT UTILITY
                (LUH).
007            AH-64 APACHE            25         494,009                                     25         494,009
                BLOCK IIIA
                REMAN.
008               ADVANCE                         157,338                                                157,338
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
012            UH-60 BLACKHAWK         79       1,237,001                     98,400          79       1,335,401
                M MODEL (MYP).
                   ARNG                                                      [98,400]
                   Modernizati
                   on-6
                   additional
                   UH-60M
                   aircraft.
013               ADVANCE                         132,138                                                132,138
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
014            CH-47                   32         892,504                                     32         892,504
                HELICOPTER.
015               ADVANCE                         102,361                                                102,361
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
               MODIFICATION OF
                AIRCRAFT
016            MQ-1 PAYLOAD             2          26,913                                      2          26,913
                (MIP).
018            GUARDRAIL MODS                      14,182                                                 14,182
                (MIP).
019            MULTI SENSOR                       131,892                                                131,892
                ABN RECON
                (MIP).
020            AH-64 MODS.....                    181,869                                                181,869
021            CH-47 CARGO                         32,092                                                 32,092
                HELICOPTER
                MODS (MYP).
022            UTILITY/CARGO                       15,029                                                 15,029
                AIRPLANE MODS.
023            UTILITY                             76,515                      6,800                      83,315
                HELICOPTER
                MODS.
                   ARNG                                                       [6,800]
                   Modernizati
                   on-UH-60A
                   to UH-60L
                   conversions.
025            NETWORK AND                        114,182                                                114,182
                MISSION PLAN.
026            COMMS, NAV                         115,795                                                115,795
                SURVEILLANCE.
027            GATM ROLLUP....                     54,277                                                 54,277
028            RQ-7 UAV MODS..                    125,380                                                125,380
               GROUND SUPPORT
                AVIONICS
029            AIRCRAFT                            66,450                     32,400                      98,850
                SURVIVABILITY
                EQUIPMENT.
                   Army                                                      [32,400]
                   requested
                   realignment.
030            SURVIVABILITY                                                   7,800                       7,800
                CM.
                   Army                                                       [7,800]
                   requested
                   realignment.
031            CMWS...........                    107,364                    -47,000                      60,364
                   Army                                                     [-47,000]
                   requested
                   reduction.
               OTHER SUPPORT
032            AVIONICS                             6,847                                                  6,847
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
033            COMMON GROUND                       29,231                                                 29,231
                EQUIPMENT.
034            AIRCREW                             48,081                                                 48,081
                INTEGRATED
                SYSTEMS.
035            AIR TRAFFIC                        127,232                                                127,232
                CONTROL.
036            INDUSTRIAL                           1,203                                                  1,203
                FACILITIES.
037            LAUNCHER, 2.75         387           2,931                                    387           2,931
                ROCKET.
                    TOTAL             616       5,102,685                    147,400         616       5,250,085
                    AIRCRAFT
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, ARMY.
 
               MISSILE
                PROCUREMENT,
                ARMY
               SURFACE-TO-AIR
                MISSILE SYSTEM
002            LOWER TIER AIR                     110,300                                                110,300
                AND MISSILE
                DEFENSE (AMD).
003            MSE MISSILE....         70         384,605                                     70         384,605
               AIR-TO-SURFACE
                MISSILE SYSTEM
004            HELLFIRE SYS                         4,452                                                  4,452
                SUMMARY.
               ANTI-TANK/
                ASSAULT
                MISSILE SYS
005            JAVELIN (AAWS-         338          77,668                                    338          77,668
                M) SYSTEM
                SUMMARY.
006            TOW 2 SYSTEM         1,008          50,368                                  1,008          50,368
                SUMMARY.
007               ADVANCE                          19,984                                                 19,984
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
008            GUIDED MLRS            534         127,145                                    534         127,145
                ROCKET (GMLRS).
009            MLRS REDUCED         2,994          21,274                                  2,994          21,274
                RANGE PRACTICE
                ROCKETS (RRPR).
               MODIFICATIONS
012            PATRIOT MODS...                    131,838                                                131,838
013            STINGER MODS...                      1,355                                                  1,355
014            AVENGER MODS...                      5,611                                                  5,611
015            ITAS/TOW MODS..                     19,676                                                 19,676
016            MLRS MODS......                     10,380                                                 10,380
017            HIMARS                               6,008                                                  6,008
                MODIFICATIONS.
               SPARES AND
                REPAIR PARTS
018            SPARES AND                          36,930                                                 36,930
                REPAIR PARTS.
               SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT &
                FACILITIES
019            AIR DEFENSE                          3,657                                                  3,657
                TARGETS.
020            ITEMS LESS THAN                      1,522                                                  1,522
                $5.0M
                (MISSILES).
021            PRODUCTION BASE                      4,710                                                  4,710
                SUPPORT.
                    TOTAL           4,944       1,017,483                                  4,944       1,017,483
                    MISSILE
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, ARMY.
 
               PROCUREMENT OF
                W&TCV, ARMY
               TRACKED COMBAT
                VEHICLES
001            STRYKER VEHICLE                    385,110                                                385,110
               MODIFICATION OF
                TRACKED COMBAT
                VEHICLES
002            STRYKER (MOD)..                     39,683                     50,000                      89,683
                   Unfunded                                                  [50,000]
                   requirement-
                   Fourth DVH
                   Brigade Set.
003            FIST VEHICLE                        26,759                                                 26,759
                (MOD).
004            BRADLEY PROGRAM                    107,506                                                107,506
                (MOD).
005            HOWITZER, MED                       45,411                                                 45,411
                SP FT 155MM
                M109A6 (MOD).
006            PALADIN                 18         247,400                                     18         247,400
                INTEGRATED
                MANAGEMENT
                (PIM).
007            IMPROVED                15          50,451                                     15          50,451
                RECOVERY
                VEHICLE (M88A2
                HERCULES).
008            ASSAULT BRIDGE                       2,473                                                  2,473
                (MOD).
009            ASSAULT                  7          36,583                                      7          36,583
                BREACHER
                VEHICLE.
010            M88 FOV MODS...                      1,975                     72,000                      73,975
                   Unfunded                                                  [72,000]
                   requirement-
                   Industrial
                   Base
                   Initiative.
011            JOINT ASSAULT            8          49,462                                      8          49,462
                BRIDGE.
012            M1 ABRAMS TANK                     237,023                                                237,023
                (MOD).
013            ABRAMS UPGRADE                                                120,000                     120,000
                PROGRAM.
                   Industrial                                               [120,000]
                   Base
                   initiative.
               SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT &
                FACILITIES
014            PRODUCTION BASE                      6,478                                                  6,478
                SUPPORT (TCV-
                WTCV).
               WEAPONS & OTHER
                COMBAT
                VEHICLES
016            MORTAR SYSTEMS.                      5,012                                                  5,012
017            XM320 GRENADE        8,959          28,390                                  8,959          28,390
                LAUNCHER
                MODULE (GLM).
018            COMPACT SEMI-                          148                                                    148
                AUTOMATIC
                SNIPER SYSTEM.
019            CARBINE........     38,234          29,366                     -8,750      38,234          20,616
                   Army                                                      [-8,750]
                   requested
                   realignment.
021            COMMON REMOTELY                      8,409                                                  8,409
                OPERATED
                WEAPONS
                STATION.
022            HANDGUN........      4,811           3,957                     -2,000       4,811           1,957
                   Funding                                                   [-2,000]
                   ahead of
                   need.
               MOD OF WEAPONS
                AND OTHER
                COMBAT VEH
024            M777 MODS......                     18,166                                                 18,166
025            M4 CARBINE MODS                      3,446                      3,000                       6,446
                   Army                                                       [3,000]
                   requested
                   realignment.
026            M2 50 CAL                           25,296                                                 25,296
                MACHINE GUN
                MODS.
027            M249 SAW                             5,546                                                  5,546
                MACHINE GUN
                MODS.
028            M240 MEDIUM                          4,635                     -2,000                       2,635
                MACHINE GUN
                MODS.
                   Army                                                      [-2,000]
                   requested
                   realignment.
029            SNIPER RIFLES                        4,079                                                  4,079
                MODIFICATIONS.
030            M119                                72,718                                                 72,718
                MODIFICATIONS.
031            M16 RIFLE MODS.                      1,952                     -1,952                           0
                   Army                                                      [-1,952]
                   requested
                   realignment.
032            MORTAR                               8,903                                                  8,903
                MODIFICATION.
033            MODIFICATIONS                        2,089                                                  2,089
                LESS THAN
                $5.0M (WOCV-
                WTCV).
               SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT &
                FACILITIES
034            ITEMS LESS THAN                      2,005                                                  2,005
                $5.0M (WOCV-
                WTCV).
035            PRODUCTION BASE                      8,911                                                  8,911
                SUPPORT (WOCV-
                WTCV).
036            INDUSTRIAL                             414                                                    414
                PREPAREDNESS.
037            SMALL ARMS                           1,682                                                  1,682
                EQUIPMENT
                (SOLDIER ENH
                PROG).
                    TOTAL          52,052       1,471,438                    230,298      52,052       1,701,736
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T OF
                    W&TCV,
                    ARMY.
 
               PROCUREMENT OF
                AMMUNITION,
                ARMY
               SMALL/MEDIUM
                CAL AMMUNITION
001            CTG, 5.56MM,                        34,943                                                 34,943
                ALL TYPES.
002            CTG, 7.62MM,                        12,418                                                 12,418
                ALL TYPES.
003            CTG, HANDGUN,                        9,655                     -1,500                       8,155
                ALL TYPES.
                   Funding                                                   [-1,500]
                   ahead of
                   need.
004            CTG, .50 CAL,                       29,304                                                 29,304
                ALL TYPES.
006            CTG, 25MM, ALL                       8,181                                                  8,181
                TYPES.
007            CTG, 30MM, ALL                      52,667                                                 52,667
                TYPES.
008            CTG, 40MM, ALL                      40,904                                                 40,904
                TYPES.
               MORTAR
                AMMUNITION
009            60MM MORTAR,                        41,742                                                 41,742
                ALL TYPES.
010            81MM MORTAR,                        42,433                                                 42,433
                ALL TYPES.
011            120MM MORTAR,                       39,365                                                 39,365
                ALL TYPES.
               TANK AMMUNITION
012            CARTRIDGES,                        101,900                                                101,900
                TANK, 105MM
                AND 120MM, ALL
                TYPES.
               ARTILLERY
                AMMUNITION
013            ARTILLERY                           37,455                                                 37,455
                CARTRIDGES,
                75MM & 105MM,
                ALL TYPES.
014            ARTILLERY                           47,023                                                 47,023
                PROJECTILE,
                155MM, ALL
                TYPES.
015            PROJ 155MM             416          35,672                                    416          35,672
                EXTENDED RANGE
                M982.
016            ARTILLERY                           94,010                    -20,000                      74,010
                PROPELLANTS,
                FUZES AND
                PRIMERS, ALL.
                   Precision                                                [-20,000]
                   Guided Kits
                   Schedule
                   Delay.
               ROCKETS
019            SHOULDER                               945                                                    945
                LAUNCHED
                MUNITIONS, ALL
                TYPES.
020            ROCKET, HYDRA                       27,286                                                 27,286
                70, ALL TYPES.
               OTHER
                AMMUNITION
021            DEMOLITION                          22,899                                                 22,899
                MUNITIONS, ALL
                TYPES.
022            GRENADES, ALL                       22,751                                                 22,751
                TYPES.
023            SIGNALS, ALL                         7,082                                                  7,082
                TYPES.
024            SIMULATORS, ALL                     11,638                                                 11,638
                TYPES.
               MISCELLANEOUS
025            AMMO                                 3,594                                                  3,594
                COMPONENTS,
                ALL TYPES.
027            CAD/PAD ALL                          5,430                                                  5,430
                TYPES.
028            ITEMS LESS THAN                      8,337                                                  8,337
                $5 MILLION
                (AMMO).
029            AMMUNITION                          14,906                                                 14,906
                PECULIAR
                EQUIPMENT.
030            FIRST                               14,349                                                 14,349
                DESTINATION
                TRANSPORTATION
                (AMMO).
031            CLOSEOUT                               111                                                    111
                LIABILITIES.
               PRODUCTION BASE
                SUPPORT
032            PROVISION OF                       148,092                     -1,900                     146,192
                INDUSTRIAL
                FACILITIES.
                   Unjustified                                               [-1,900]
                   request.
033            CONVENTIONAL                       113,881                                                113,881
                MUNITIONS
                DEMILITARIZATI
                ON.
034            ARMS INITIATIVE                      2,504                                                  2,504
                    TOTAL             416       1,031,477                    -23,400         416       1,008,077
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T OF
                    AMMUNITION
                    , ARMY.
 
               OTHER
                PROCUREMENT,
                ARMY
               TACTICAL
                VEHICLES
001            TACTICAL                             7,987                                                  7,987
                TRAILERS/DOLLY
                SETS.
002            SEMITRAILERS,            1             160                                      1             160
                FLATBED:.
004            JOINT LIGHT            176         164,615                                    176         164,615
                TACTICAL
                VEHICLE.
005            FAMILY OF                                                      50,000                      50,000
                MEDIUM
                TACTICAL VEH
                (FMTV).
                   Additional                                                [50,000]
                   FMTVs -
                   Industrial
                   Base
                   initiative.
006            FIRETRUCKS &            19           8,415                                     19           8,415
                ASSOCIATED
                FIREFIGHTING
                EQUIP.
007            FAMILY OF HEAVY        444          28,425                     50,000         444          78,425
                TACTICAL
                VEHICLES
                (FHTV).
                   Additional                                                [50,000]
                   HEMTT ESP
                   Vehicles-
                   Industrial
                   Base
                   initiative.
008            PLS ESP........        198          89,263                                    198          89,263
013            TACTICAL               735          38,226                                    735          38,226
                WHEELED
                VEHICLE
                PROTECTION
                KITS.
014            MODIFICATION OF        768          91,173                     -8,000         768          83,173
                IN SVC EQUIP.
                   Early to                                                  [-8,000]
                   need.
015            MINE-RESISTANT           1          14,731                                      1          14,731
                AMBUSH-
                PROTECTED
                (MRAP) MODS.
               NON-TACTICAL
                VEHICLES
016            HEAVY ARMORED            1             175                                      1             175
                SEDAN.
017            PASSENGER               25           1,338                                     25           1,338
                CARRYING
                VEHICLES.
018            NONTACTICAL                         11,101                                                 11,101
                VEHICLES,
                OTHER.
               COMM--JOINT
                COMMUNICATIONS
019            WIN-T--GROUND        1,280         763,087                   -125,000       1,280         638,087
                FORCES
                TACTICAL
                NETWORK.
                   Unobligated                                             [-125,000]
                   balances.
020            SIGNAL                  69          21,157                                     69          21,157
                MODERNIZATION
                PROGRAM.
021            JOINT INCIDENT                       7,915                                                  7,915
                SITE
                COMMUNICATIONS
                CAPABILITY.
022            JCSE EQUIPMENT                       5,440                                                  5,440
                (USREDCOM).
               COMM--SATELLITE
                COMMUNICATIONS
023            DEFENSE                 18         118,085                                     18         118,085
                ENTERPRISE
                WIDEBAND
                SATCOM SYSTEMS.
024            TRANSPORTABLE           21          13,999                                     21          13,999
                TACTICAL
                COMMAND
                COMMUNICATIONS.
025            SHF TERM.......                      6,494                                                  6,494
026            NAVSTAR GLOBAL                       1,635                                                  1,635
                POSITIONING
                SYSTEM (SPACE).
027            SMART-T (SPACE)                     13,554                                                 13,554
028            GLOBAL BRDCST                       18,899                                                 18,899
                SVC--GBS.
029            MOD OF IN-SVC                        2,849                                                  2,849
                EQUIP (TAC
                SAT).
030            ENROUTE MISSION                    100,000                                                100,000
                COMMAND (EMC).
               COMM--COMBAT
                COMMUNICATIONS
033            JOINT TACTICAL       2,674         175,711                    -50,000       2,674         125,711
                RADIO SYSTEM.
                   Unobligated                                              [-50,000]
                   balances.
034            MID-TIER                             9,692                     -5,000                       4,692
                NETWORKING
                VEHICULAR
                RADIO (MNVR).
                   Unobligated                                               [-5,000]
                   balances.
035            RADIO TERMINAL         620          17,136                                    620          17,136
                SET, MIDS
                LVT(2).
037            AMC CRITICAL         3,081          22,099                                  3,081          22,099
                ITEMS--OPA2.
038            TRACTOR DESK...                      3,724                                                  3,724
039            SPIDER APLA                            969                                                    969
                REMOTE CONTROL
                UNIT.
040            SOLDIER                                294                                                    294
                ENHANCEMENT
                PROGRAM COMM/
                ELECTRONICS.
041            TACTICAL             8,344          24,354                                  8,344          24,354
                COMMUNICATIONS
                AND PROTECTIVE
                SYSTEM.
042            UNIFIED COMMAND                     17,445                                                 17,445
                SUITE.
043            RADIO, IMPROVED                      1,028                                                  1,028
                HF (COTS)
                FAMILY.
044            FAMILY OF MED          974          22,614                                    974          22,614
                COMM FOR
                COMBAT
                CASUALTY CARE.
               COMM--INTELLIGE
                NCE COMM
046            CI AUTOMATION                        1,519                                                  1,519
                ARCHITECTURE.
047            ARMY CA/MISO           305          12,478                                    305          12,478
                GPF EQUIPMENT.
               INFORMATION
                SECURITY
050            INFORMATION                          2,113                                                  2,113
                SYSTEM
                SECURITY
                PROGRAM-ISSP.
051            COMMUNICATIONS       2,750          69,646                                  2,750          69,646
                SECURITY
                (COMSEC).
               COMM--LONG HAUL
                COMMUNICATIONS
052            BASE SUPPORT                        28,913                                                 28,913
                COMMUNICATIONS.
               COMM--BASE
                COMMUNICATIONS
053            INFORMATION                         97,091                                                 97,091
                SYSTEMS.
054            DEFENSE MESSAGE                        246                                                    246
                SYSTEM (DMS).
055            EMERGENCY                            5,362                                                  5,362
                MANAGEMENT
                MODERNIZATION
                PROGRAM.
056            INSTALLATION                        79,965                                                 79,965
                INFO
                INFRASTRUCTURE
                MOD PROGRAM.
               ELECT EQUIP--
                TACT INT REL
                ACT (TIARA)
060            JTT/CIBS-M.....                        870                                                    870
061            PROPHET GROUND.         11          55,896                                     11          55,896
063            DCGS-A (MIP)...      2,423         128,207                                  2,423         128,207
064            JOINT TACTICAL           2           5,286                                      2           5,286
                GROUND STATION
                (JTAGS).
065            TROJAN (MIP)...                     12,614                                                 12,614
066            MOD OF IN-SVC                        3,901                                                  3,901
                EQUIP (INTEL
                SPT) (MIP).
067            CI HUMINT AUTO         358           7,392                                    358           7,392
                REPRTING AND
                COLL(CHARCS).
               ELECT EQUIP--
                ELECTRONIC
                WARFARE (EW)
068            LIGHTWEIGHT              3          24,828                                      3          24,828
                COUNTER MORTAR
                RADAR.
070            AIR VIGILANCE                        7,000                                                  7,000
                (AV).
072            COUNTERINTELLIG                      1,285                                                  1,285
                ENCE/SECURITY
                COUNTERMEASURE
                S.
               ELECT EQUIP--
                TACTICAL SURV.
                (TAC SURV)
075            SENTINEL MODS..         81          44,305                                     81          44,305
076            NIGHT VISION         9,700         160,901                                  9,700         160,901
                DEVICES.
078            SMALL TACTICAL       1,935          18,520                                  1,935          18,520
                OPTICAL RIFLE
                MOUNTED MLRF.
080            INDIRECT FIRE          173          68,296                                    173          68,296
                PROTECTION
                FAMILY OF
                SYSTEMS.
081            FAMILY OF            1,716          49,205                    -15,000       1,716          34,205
                WEAPON SIGHTS
                (FWS).
                   Early to                                                 [-15,000]
                   need.
082            ARTILLERY              137           4,896                                    137           4,896
                ACCURACY EQUIP.
083            PROFILER.......                      3,115                                                  3,115
084            MOD OF IN-SVC                        4,186                                                  4,186
                EQUIP
                (FIREFINDER
                RADARS).
085            JOINT BATTLE         2,622          97,892                    -10,000       2,622          87,892
                COMMAND--PLATF
                ORM (JBC-P).
                   Schedule                                                 [-10,000]
                   delay.
086            JOINT EFFECTS           41          27,450                                     41          27,450
                TARGETING
                SYSTEM (JETS).
087            MOD OF IN-SVC           34          14,085                                     34          14,085
                EQUIP (LLDR).
088            MORTAR FIRE            255          29,040                                    255          29,040
                CONTROL SYSTEM.
089            COUNTERFIRE             13         209,050                    -50,000          13         159,050
                RADARS.
                   Excessive                                                [-50,000]
                   LRIP/
                   concurrency
                   costs.
               ELECT EQUIP--
                TACTICAL C2
                SYSTEMS
092            FIRE SUPPORT C2                     13,823                                                 13,823
                FAMILY.
095            AIR & MSL                5          27,374                                      5          27,374
                DEFENSE
                PLANNING &
                CONTROL SYS.
097            LIFE CYCLE                           2,508                                                  2,508
                SOFTWARE
                SUPPORT (LCSS).
099            NETWORK                             21,524                                                 21,524
                MANAGEMENT
                INITIALIZATION
                AND SERVICE.
100            MANEUVER             3,748          95,455                                  3,748          95,455
                CONTROL SYSTEM
                (MCS).
101            GLOBAL COMBAT                      118,600                                                118,600
                SUPPORT SYSTEM-
                ARMY (GCSS-A).
102            INTEGRATED                          32,970                                                 32,970
                PERSONNEL AND
                PAY SYSTEM-
                ARMY (IPP.
104            RECONNAISSANCE          56          10,113                                     56          10,113
                AND SURVEYING
                INSTRUMENT SET.
               ELECT EQUIP--
                AUTOMATION
105            ARMY TRAINING                        9,015                                                  9,015
                MODERNIZATION.
106            AUTOMATED DATA                     155,223                                                155,223
                PROCESSING
                EQUIP.
107            GENERAL FUND                        16,581                                                 16,581
                ENTERPRISE
                BUSINESS
                SYSTEMS FAM.
108            HIGH PERF                           65,252                                                 65,252
                COMPUTING MOD
                PGM (HPCMP).
110            RESERVE                             17,631                                                 17,631
                COMPONENT
                AUTOMATION SYS
                (RCAS).
               ELECT EQUIP--
                AUDIO VISUAL
                SYS (A/V)
112            ITEMS LESS THAN         51           5,437                                     51           5,437
                $5M (SURVEYING
                EQUIPMENT).
               ELECT EQUIP--
                SUPPORT
113            PRODUCTION BASE                        426                                                    426
                SUPPORT (C-E).
               CLASSIFIED
                PROGRAMS
114A           CLASSIFIED                           3,707                                                  3,707
                PROGRAMS.
               CHEMICAL
                DEFENSIVE
                EQUIPMENT
115            FAMILY OF NON-                         937                                                    937
                LETHAL
                EQUIPMENT
                (FNLE).
116            BASE DEFENSE                         1,930                                                  1,930
                SYSTEMS (BDS).
117            CBRN DEFENSE...     14,506          17,468                                 14,506          17,468
               BRIDGING
                EQUIPMENT
119            TACTICAL                 6           5,442                                      6           5,442
                BRIDGE, FLOAT-
                RIBBON.
120            COMMON BRIDGE                       11,013                                                 11,013
                TRANSPORTER
                (CBT) RECAP.
               ENGINEER (NON-
                CONSTRUCTION)
                EQUIPMENT
121            GRND STANDOFF                       37,649                     -4,400                      33,249
                MINE DETECTN
                SYSM
                (GSTAMIDS).
                   Early to                                                  [-4,400]
                   need.
122            HUSKY MOUNTED           84          18,545                                     84          18,545
                DETECTION
                SYSTEM (HMDS).
123            ROBOTIC COMBAT           1           4,701                                      1           4,701
                SUPPORT SYSTEM
                (RCSS).
124            EOD ROBOTICS                         6,346                                                  6,346
                SYSTEMS
                RECAPITALIZATI
                ON.
125            EXPLOSIVE              133          15,856                                    133          15,856
                ORDNANCE
                DISPOSAL EQPMT
                (EOD EQPMT).
126            REMOTE                               4,485                                                  4,485
                DEMOLITION
                SYSTEMS.
127            < $5M,                  92           4,938                                     92           4,938
                COUNTERMINE
                EQUIPMENT.
               COMBAT SERVICE
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
128            HEATERS AND            628           9,235                                    628           9,235
                ECU'S.
130            SOLDIER                  1           1,677                                      1           1,677
                ENHANCEMENT.
131            PERSONNEL           12,273          16,728                                 12,273          16,728
                RECOVERY
                SUPPORT SYSTEM
                (PRSS).
132            GROUND SOLDIER       3,581          84,761                                  3,581          84,761
                SYSTEM.
134            FIELD FEEDING          141          15,179                                    141          15,179
                EQUIPMENT.
135            CARGO AERIAL         1,386          28,194                                  1,386          28,194
                DEL &
                PERSONNEL
                PARACHUTE
                SYSTEM.
137            FAMILY OF ENGR         336          41,967                                    336          41,967
                COMBAT AND
                CONSTRUCTION
                SETS.
138            ITEMS LESS THAN        859          20,090                                    859          20,090
                $5M (ENG SPT).
               PETROLEUM
                EQUIPMENT
139            QUALITY                              1,435                                                  1,435
                SURVEILLANCE
                EQUIPMENT.
140            DISTRIBUTION           599          40,692                                    599          40,692
                SYSTEMS,
                PETROLEUM &
                WATER.
               MEDICAL
                EQUIPMENT
141            COMBAT SUPPORT       2,388          46,957                                  2,388          46,957
                MEDICAL.
               MAINTENANCE
                EQUIPMENT
142            MOBILE                  60          23,758                                     60          23,758
                MAINTENANCE
                EQUIPMENT
                SYSTEMS.
143            ITEMS LESS THAN        585           2,789                                    585           2,789
                $5.0M (MAINT
                EQ).
               CONSTRUCTION
                EQUIPMENT
144            GRADER, ROAD            22           5,827                                     22           5,827
                MTZD, HVY, 6X4
                (CCE).
145            SCRAPERS,               22          14,926                                     22          14,926
                EARTHMOVING.
147            COMPACTOR......        617           4,348                                    617           4,348
148            HYDRAULIC               14           4,938                                     14           4,938
                EXCAVATOR.
149            TRACTOR, FULL           95          34,071                                     95          34,071
                TRACKED.
150            ALL TERRAIN              4           4,938                                      4           4,938
                CRANES.
151            PLANT, ASPHALT                         667                                                    667
                MIXING.
153            ENHANCED RAPID                      14,924                                                 14,924
                AIRFIELD
                CONSTRUCTION
                CAPAP.
154            CONST EQUIP ESP         79          15,933                                     79          15,933
155            ITEMS LESS THAN         53           6,749                                     53           6,749
                $5.0M (CONST
                EQUIP).
               RAIL FLOAT
                CONTAINERIZATI
                ON EQUIPMENT
156            ARMY WATERCRAFT                     10,509                                                 10,509
                ESP.
157            ITEMS LESS THAN                      2,166                                                  2,166
                $5.0M (FLOAT/
                RAIL).
               GENERATORS
158            GENERATORS AND       3,882         115,190                    -10,000       3,882         105,190
                ASSOCIATED
                EQUIP.
                   Cost                                                     [-10,000]
                   savings
                   from new
                   contract.
               MATERIAL
                HANDLING
                EQUIPMENT
160            FAMILY OF              146          14,327                                    146          14,327
                FORKLIFTS.
               TRAINING
                EQUIPMENT
161            COMBAT TRAINING          1          65,062                                      1          65,062
                CENTERS
                SUPPORT.
162            TRAINING                43         101,295                                     43         101,295
                DEVICES,
                NONSYSTEM.
163            CLOSE COMBAT                        13,406                                                 13,406
                TACTICAL
                TRAINER.
164            AVIATION                            14,440                                                 14,440
                COMBINED ARMS
                TACTICAL
                TRAINER.
165            GAMING                              10,165                                                 10,165
                TECHNOLOGY IN
                SUPPORT OF
                ARMY TRAINING.
               TEST MEASURE
                AND DIG
                EQUIPMENT
                (TMD)
166            CALIBRATION                          5,726                                                  5,726
                SETS EQUIPMENT.
167            INTEGRATED           1,657          37,482                                  1,657          37,482
                FAMILY OF TEST
                EQUIPMENT
                (IFTE).
168            TEST EQUIPMENT         415          16,061                                    415          16,061
                MODERNIZATION
                (TEMOD).
               OTHER SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
170            RAPID EQUIPPING                      2,380                                                  2,380
                SOLDIER
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
171            PHYSICAL                            30,686                                                 30,686
                SECURITY
                SYSTEMS (OPA3).
172            BASE LEVEL                           1,008                                                  1,008
                COMMON
                EQUIPMENT.
173            MODIFICATION OF      3,209          98,559                    -15,000       3,209          83,559
                IN-SVC
                EQUIPMENT (OPA-
                3).
                   Early to                                                 [-15,000]
                   need--water
                   craft C4ISR.
174            PRODUCTION BASE                      1,697                                                  1,697
                SUPPORT (OTH).
175            SPECIAL                             25,394                                                 25,394
                EQUIPMENT FOR
                USER TESTING.
176            AMC CRITICAL           963          12,975                                    963          12,975
                ITEMS OPA3.
               OPA2
180            INITIAL SPARES--        11          50,032                                     11          50,032
                C&E.
                    TOTAL          94,760       4,893,634                   -192,400      94,760       4,701,234
                    OTHER
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, ARMY.
 
               JOINT IMPR
                EXPLOSIVE DEV
                DEFEAT FUND
               STAFF AND
                INFRASTRUCTURE
004            OPERATIONS.....                    115,058                   -115,058                           0
                   Transfer of                                              [-65,558]
                   JIEDDO to
                   Overseas
                   Contingency
                   Operations.
                   Unjustified                                              [-49,500]
                   request.
                    TOTAL                         115,058                   -115,058                           0
                    JOINT IMPR
                    EXPLOSIVE
                    DEV DEFEAT
                    FUND.
 
               AIRCRAFT
                PROCUREMENT,
                NAVY
               COMBAT AIRCRAFT
001            EA-18G.........                     43,547          5         450,000           5         493,547
                   Additional                                    [5]        [450,000]
                   EA-18G
                   aircraft.
005            JOINT STRIKE             2         610,652                                      2         610,652
                FIGHTER CV.
006               ADVANCE                          29,400                                                 29,400
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
007            JSF STOVL......          6       1,200,410                                      6       1,200,410
008               ADVANCE                         143,885                                                143,885
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
009            V-22 (MEDIUM            19       1,487,000                                     19       1,487,000
                LIFT).
010               ADVANCE                          45,920                                                 45,920
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
011            H-1 UPGRADES            26         778,757                                     26         778,757
                (UH-1Y/AH-1Z).
012               ADVANCE                          80,926                                                 80,926
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
013            MH-60S (MYP)...          8         210,209                                      8         210,209
015            MH-60R (MYP)...         29         933,882                    -53,400          29         880,482
                   CVN 73                                                   [-53,400]
                   Refueling
                   and Complex
                   Overhaul
                   (RCOH).
016               ADVANCE                         106,686                                                106,686
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
017            P-8A POSEIDON..          8       2,003,327                                      8       2,003,327
018               ADVANCE                          48,457                                                 48,457
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
019            E-2D ADV                 4         819,870                                      4         819,870
                HAWKEYE.
020               ADVANCE                         225,765                                                225,765
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
               OTHER AIRCRAFT
023            KC-130J........          1          92,290                                      1          92,290
026               ADVANCE                          37,445                                                 37,445
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
027            MQ-8 UAV.......                     40,663                                                 40,663
               MODIFICATION OF
                AIRCRAFT
029            EA-6 SERIES....                     10,993                                                 10,993
030            AEA SYSTEMS....                     34,768                                                 34,768
031            AV-8 SERIES....                     65,472                                                 65,472
032            ADVERSARY......                      8,418                                                  8,418
033            F-18 SERIES....                    679,177                                                679,177
034            H-46 SERIES....                        480                                                    480
036            H-53 SERIES....                     38,159                                                 38,159
037            SH-60 SERIES...                    108,850                                                108,850
038            H-1 SERIES.....                     45,033                                                 45,033
039            EP-3 SERIES....                     32,890                     18,000                      50,890
                   Obsolescenc                                                [5,000]
                   e issues.
                   SIGINT                                                    [13,000]
                   Architectur
                   e
                   Modernizati
                   on Common
                   Configurati
                   on.
040            P-3 SERIES.....                      2,823                                                  2,823
041            E-2 SERIES.....                     21,208                                                 21,208
042            TRAINER A/C                         12,608                                                 12,608
                SERIES.
044            C-130 SERIES...                     40,378                                                 40,378
045            FEWSG..........                        640                                                    640
046            CARGO/TRANSPORT                      4,635                                                  4,635
                A/C SERIES.
047            E-6 SERIES.....                    212,876                                                212,876
048            EXECUTIVE                           71,328                                                 71,328
                HELICOPTERS
                SERIES.
049            SPECIAL PROJECT                     21,317                                                 21,317
                AIRCRAFT.
050            T-45 SERIES....                     90,052                                                 90,052
051            POWER PLANT                         19,094                                                 19,094
                CHANGES.
052            JPATS SERIES...                      1,085                                                  1,085
054            COMMON ECM                         155,644                                                155,644
                EQUIPMENT.
055            COMMON AVIONICS                    157,531                                                157,531
                CHANGES.
056            COMMON                               1,958                                                  1,958
                DEFENSIVE
                WEAPON SYSTEM.
057            ID SYSTEMS.....                     38,880                                                 38,880
058            P-8 SERIES.....                     29,797                                                 29,797
059            MAGTF EW FOR                        14,770                                                 14,770
                AVIATION.
060            MQ-8 SERIES....                      8,741                                                  8,741
061            RQ-7 SERIES....                      2,542                                                  2,542
062            V-22 (TILT/                        135,584                                                135,584
                ROTOR ACFT)
                OSPREY.
063            F-35 STOVL                         285,968                                                285,968
                SERIES.
064            F-35 CV SERIES.                     20,502                                                 20,502
               AIRCRAFT SPARES
                AND REPAIR
                PARTS
065            SPARES AND                       1,229,651                     -3,000                   1,226,651
                REPAIR PARTS.
                   Program                                                   [-3,000]
                   decrease.
               AIRCRAFT
                SUPPORT EQUIP
                & FACILITIES
066            COMMON GROUND                      418,355                                                418,355
                EQUIPMENT.
067            AIRCRAFT                            23,843                                                 23,843
                INDUSTRIAL
                FACILITIES.
068            WAR CONSUMABLES                     15,939                                                 15,939
069            OTHER                                5,630                                                  5,630
                PRODUCTION
                CHARGES.
070            SPECIAL SUPPORT                     65,839                                                 65,839
                EQUIPMENT.
071            FIRST                                1,768                                                  1,768
                DESTINATION
                TRANSPORTATION.
                    TOTAL             103      13,074,317          5         411,600         108      13,485,917
                    AIRCRAFT
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, NAVY.
 
               WEAPONS
                PROCUREMENT,
                NAVY
               MODIFICATION OF
                MISSILES
001            TRIDENT II MODS                  1,190,455                                              1,190,455
               SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT &
                FACILITIES
002            MISSILE                              5,671                                                  5,671
                INDUSTRIAL
                FACILITIES.
               STRATEGIC
                MISSILES
003            TOMAHAWK.......        100         194,258         96          82,000         196         276,258
                   Minimum                                      [96]         [82,000]
                   sustaining
                   rate
                   increase.
               TACTICAL
                MISSILES
004            AMRAAM.........                     32,165                    -10,000                      22,165
                   Program                                                  [-10,000]
                   decrease.
005            SIDEWINDER.....        167          73,928                                    167          73,928
006            JSOW...........        200         130,759                                    200         130,759
007            STANDARD               110         445,836                                    110         445,836
                MISSILE.
008            RAM............         90          80,792                                     90          80,792
011            STAND OFF               14           1,810                                     14           1,810
                PRECISION
                GUIDED
                MUNITIONS
                (SOPGM).
012            AERIAL TARGETS.                     48,046                                                 48,046
013            OTHER MISSILE                        3,295                                                  3,295
                SUPPORT.
               MODIFICATION OF
                MISSILES
014            ESSM...........        104         119,434                                    104         119,434
015            HARM MODS......                    111,739                                                111,739
               SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT &
                FACILITIES
016            WEAPONS                              2,531                                                  2,531
                INDUSTRIAL
                FACILITIES.
017            FLEET SATELLITE                    208,700                     -9,000                     199,700
                COMM FOLLOW-ON.
                   Excess to                                                 [-9,000]
                   need.
               ORDNANCE
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
018            ORDNANCE                            73,211                                                 73,211
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
               TORPEDOES AND
                RELATED EQUIP
019            SSTD...........                      6,562                                                  6,562
020            MK-48 TORPEDO..                     14,153                                                 14,153
021            ASW TARGETS....                      2,515                                                  2,515
               MOD OF
                TORPEDOES AND
                RELATED EQUIP
022            MK-54 TORPEDO                       98,928                                                 98,928
                MODS.
023            MK-48 TORPEDO                       46,893                                                 46,893
                ADCAP MODS.
024            QUICKSTRIKE                          6,966                                                  6,966
                MINE.
               SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
025            TORPEDO SUPPORT                     52,670                                                 52,670
                EQUIPMENT.
026            ASW RANGE                            3,795                                                  3,795
                SUPPORT.
               DESTINATION
                TRANSPORTATION
027            FIRST                                3,692                                                  3,692
                DESTINATION
                TRANSPORTATION.
               GUNS AND GUN
                MOUNTS
028            SMALL ARMS AND                      13,240                                                 13,240
                WEAPONS.
               MODIFICATION OF
                GUNS AND GUN
                MOUNTS
029            CIWS MODS......                     75,108                                                 75,108
030            COAST GUARD                         18,948                                                 18,948
                WEAPONS.
031            GUN MOUNT MODS.                     62,651                                                 62,651
033            AIRBORNE MINE                       15,006                                                 15,006
                NEUTRALIZATION
                SYSTEMS.
               SPARES AND
                REPAIR PARTS
035            SPARES AND                          74,188                                                 74,188
                REPAIR PARTS.
                    TOTAL             785       3,217,945         96          63,000         881       3,280,945
                    WEAPONS
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, NAVY.
 
               PROCUREMENT OF
                AMMO, NAVY &
                MC
               NAVY AMMUNITION
001            GENERAL PURPOSE                    107,069                                                107,069
                BOMBS.
002            AIRBORNE                            70,396                                                 70,396
                ROCKETS, ALL
                TYPES.
003            MACHINE GUN                         20,284                                                 20,284
                AMMUNITION.
004            PRACTICE BOMBS.                     26,701                                                 26,701
005            CARTRIDGES &                        53,866                                                 53,866
                CART ACTUATED
                DEVICES.
006            AIR EXPENDABLE                      59,294                                                 59,294
                COUNTERMEASURE
                S.
007            JATOS..........                      2,766                                                  2,766
008            LRLAP 6" LONG                      113,092                                                113,092
                RANGE ATTACK
                PROJECTILE.
009            5 INCH/54 GUN                       35,702                                                 35,702
                AMMUNITION.
010            INTERMEDIATE                        36,475                                                 36,475
                CALIBER GUN
                AMMUNITION.
011            OTHER SHIP GUN                      43,906                                                 43,906
                AMMUNITION.
012            SMALL ARMS &                        51,535                                                 51,535
                LANDING PARTY
                AMMO.
013            PYROTECHNIC AND                     11,652                                                 11,652
                DEMOLITION.
014            AMMUNITION LESS                      4,473                                                  4,473
                THAN $5
                MILLION.
               MARINE CORPS
                AMMUNITION
015            SMALL ARMS                          31,708                                                 31,708
                AMMUNITION.
016            LINEAR CHARGES,                        692                                                    692
                ALL TYPES.
017            40 MM, ALL                          13,630                                                 13,630
                TYPES.
018            60MM, ALL TYPES                      2,261                                                  2,261
019            81MM, ALL TYPES                      1,496                                                  1,496
020            120MM, ALL                          14,855                                                 14,855
                TYPES.
022            GRENADES, ALL                        4,000                                                  4,000
                TYPES.
023            ROCKETS, ALL                        16,853                                                 16,853
                TYPES.
024            ARTILLERY, ALL                      14,772                                                 14,772
                TYPES.
026            FUZE, ALL TYPES                      9,972                                                  9,972
027            NON LETHALS....                        998                                                    998
028            AMMO                                12,319                                                 12,319
                MODERNIZATION.
029            ITEMS LESS THAN                     11,178                                                 11,178
                $5 MILLION.
                    TOTAL                         771,945                                                771,945
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T OF AMMO,
                    NAVY & MC.
 
               SHIPBUILDING &
                CONVERSION,
                NAVY
               OTHER WARSHIPS
001            CARRIER                          1,300,000                                              1,300,000
                REPLACEMENT
                PROGRAM.
002            VIRGINIA CLASS           2       3,553,254                                      2       3,553,254
                SUBMARINE.
003               ADVANCE                       2,330,325                                              2,330,325
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
004            CVN REFUELING                                       1         483,600           1         483,600
                OVERHAULS.
                   CVN 73                                        [1]        [483,600]
                   Refueling
                   and Complex
                   Overhaul
                   (RCOH).
006            DDG 1000.......                    419,532                    -54,000                     365,532
                   DDG-1000...                                              [-54,000]
007            DDG-51.........          2       2,671,415                                      2       2,671,415
008               ADVANCE                         134,039                                                134,039
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
009            LITTORAL COMBAT          3       1,427,049         -1        -450,000           2         977,049
                SHIP.
                   Reduction                                    [-1]       [-450,000]
                   of 1 LCS.
009A              ADVANCE                                                    100,000                     100,000
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
                   Program                                                  [100,000]
                   requirement.
               AMPHIBIOUS
                SHIPS
010            LPD-17.........                     12,565          1         800,000           1         812,565
                   Incremental                                   [1]        [800,000]
                   funding for
                   LPD-28.
014               ADVANCE                          29,093                                                 29,093
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
015            JOINT HIGH                           4,590                                                  4,590
                SPEED VESSEL.
               AUXILIARIES,
                CRAFT AND
                PRIOR YR
                PROGRAM COST
016            MOORED TRAINING          1         737,268                   -220,000           1         517,268
                SHIP.
                   Moored                                                  [-220,000]
                   Training
                   Ship.
017               ADVANCE                          64,388                                                 64,388
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
018            OUTFITTING.....                    546,104                                                546,104
019            SHIP TO SHORE            2         123,233                                      2         123,233
                CONNECTOR.
020            LCAC SLEP......          2          40,485                                      2          40,485
021            COMPLETION OF                    1,007,285                                              1,007,285
                PY
                SHIPBUILDING
                PROGRAMS.
                    TOTAL              12      14,400,625          1         659,600          13      15,060,225
                    SHIPBUILDI
                    NG &
                    CONVERSION
                    , NAVY.
 
               OTHER
                PROCUREMENT,
                NAVY
               SHIP PROPULSION
                EQUIPMENT
001            LM-2500 GAS                          7,822                                                  7,822
                TURBINE.
002            ALLISON 501K                         2,155                                                  2,155
                GAS TURBINE.
003            HYBRID ELECTRIC                     22,704                     -7,000                      15,704
                DRIVE (HED).
                   Hybrid                                                    [-7,000]
                   Electric
                   Drive.
               GENERATORS
004            SURFACE                             29,120                     -7,000                      22,120
                COMBATANT HM&E.
                   Surface                                                   [-7,000]
                   Combatant
                   HM&E.
               NAVIGATION
                EQUIPMENT
005            OTHER                               45,431                                                 45,431
                NAVIGATION
                EQUIPMENT.
               PERISCOPES
006            SUB PERISCOPES                      60,970                     -8,300                      52,670
                & IMAGING
                EQUIP.
                   Submarine                                                 [-8,300]
                   Periscopes
                   and Imaging
                   Equipment.
               OTHER SHIPBOARD
                EQUIPMENT
007            DDG MOD........                    338,569                                                338,569
008            FIREFIGHTING                        15,486                                                 15,486
                EQUIPMENT.
009            COMMAND AND                          2,219                                                  2,219
                CONTROL
                SWITCHBOARD.
010            LHA/LHD MIDLIFE                     17,928                                                 17,928
011            LCC 19/20                           22,025                                                 22,025
                EXTENDED
                SERVICE LIFE
                PROGRAM.
012            POLLUTION                           12,607                                                 12,607
                CONTROL
                EQUIPMENT.
013            SUBMARINE                           16,492                                                 16,492
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
014            VIRGINIA CLASS                      74,129                                                 74,129
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
015            LCS CLASS                           36,206                                                 36,206
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
016            SUBMARINE                           37,352                                                 37,352
                BATTERIES.
017            LPD CLASS                           49,095                                                 49,095
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
018            ELECTRONIC DRY                       2,996                                                  2,996
                AIR.
019            STRATEGIC                           11,558                                                 11,558
                PLATFORM
                SUPPORT EQUIP.
020            DSSP EQUIPMENT.                      5,518                                                  5,518
022            LCAC...........                      7,158                                                  7,158
023            UNDERWATER EOD                      58,783                     -5,000                      53,783
                PROGRAMS.
                   Underwater                                                [-5,000]
                   EOD
                   programs.
024            ITEMS LESS THAN                     68,748                                                 68,748
                $5 MILLION.
025            CHEMICAL                             2,937                                                  2,937
                WARFARE
                DETECTORS.
026            SUBMARINE LIFE                       8,385                                                  8,385
                SUPPORT SYSTEM.
               REACTOR PLANT
                EQUIPMENT
027            REACTOR POWER                                                 298,200                     298,200
                UNITS.
                   CVN 73                                                   [298,200]
                   Refueling
                   and Complex
                   Overhaul
                   (RCOH).
028            REACTOR                            288,822                                                288,822
                COMPONENTS.
               OCEAN
                ENGINEERING
029            DIVING AND                          10,572                                                 10,572
                SALVAGE
                EQUIPMENT.
               SMALL BOATS
030            STANDARD BOATS.                    129,784                    -49,000                      80,784
                   Standard                                                 [-49,000]
                   Boats.
               TRAINING
                EQUIPMENT
031            OTHER SHIPS                         17,152                                                 17,152
                TRAINING
                EQUIPMENT.
               PRODUCTION
                FACILITIES
                EQUIPMENT
032            OPERATING                           39,409                                                 39,409
                FORCES IPE.
               OTHER SHIP
                SUPPORT
033            NUCLEAR                            118,129                                                118,129
                ALTERATIONS.
034            LCS COMMON                          37,413                                                 37,413
                MISSION
                MODULES
                EQUIPMENT.
035            LCS MCM MISSION                     15,270                                                 15,270
                MODULES.
036            LCS ASW MISSION                      2,729                                                  2,729
                MODULES.
037            LCS SUW MISSION                     44,208                                                 44,208
                MODULES.
038            REMOTE                              42,276                                                 42,276
                MINEHUNTING
                SYSTEM (RMS).
               SHIP SONARS
040            SPQ-9B RADAR...                     28,007                                                 28,007
041            AN/SQQ-89 SURF                      79,802                                                 79,802
                ASW COMBAT
                SYSTEM.
042            SSN ACOUSTICS..                    165,655                                                165,655
043            UNDERSEA                             9,487                                                  9,487
                WARFARE
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
044            SONAR SWITCHES                      11,621                                                 11,621
                AND
                TRANSDUCERS.
               ASW ELECTRONIC
                EQUIPMENT
046            SUBMARINE                           24,221                                                 24,221
                ACOUSTIC
                WARFARE SYSTEM.
047            SSTD...........                     12,051                                                 12,051
048            FIXED                              170,831                                                170,831
                SURVEILLANCE
                SYSTEM.
049            SURTASS........                      9,619                                                  9,619
050            MARITIME PATROL                     14,390                                                 14,390
                AND
                RECONNSAISANCE
                FORCE.
               ELECTRONIC
                WARFARE
                EQUIPMENT
051            AN/SLQ-32......                    214,582                                                214,582
               RECONNAISSANCE
                EQUIPMENT
052            SHIPBOARD IW                       124,862                                                124,862
                EXPLOIT.
053            AUTOMATED                              164                                                    164
                IDENTIFICATION
                SYSTEM (AIS).
               SUBMARINE
                SURVEILLANCE
                EQUIPMENT
054            SUBMARINE                           45,362                                                 45,362
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT PROG.
               OTHER SHIP
                ELECTRONIC
                EQUIPMENT
055            COOPERATIVE                         33,939                                                 33,939
                ENGAGEMENT
                CAPABILITY.
056            TRUSTED                                324                                                    324
                INFORMATION
                SYSTEM (TIS).
057            NAVAL TACTICAL                      18,192                                                 18,192
                COMMAND
                SUPPORT SYSTEM
                (NTCSS).
058            ATDLS..........                     16,768                                                 16,768
059            NAVY COMMAND                         5,219                                                  5,219
                AND CONTROL
                SYSTEM (NCCS).
060            MINESWEEPING                        42,108                                                 42,108
                SYSTEM
                REPLACEMENT.
062            NAVSTAR GPS                         15,232                                                 15,232
                RECEIVERS
                (SPACE).
063            AMERICAN FORCES                      4,524                                                  4,524
                RADIO AND TV
                SERVICE.
064            STRATEGIC                            6,382                                                  6,382
                PLATFORM
                SUPPORT EQUIP.
               TRAINING
                EQUIPMENT
065            OTHER TRAINING                      46,122                                                 46,122
                EQUIPMENT.
               AVIATION
                ELECTRONIC
                EQUIPMENT
066            MATCALS........                     16,999                                                 16,999
067            SHIPBOARD AIR                        9,366                                                  9,366
                TRAFFIC
                CONTROL.
068            AUTOMATIC                           21,357                                                 21,357
                CARRIER
                LANDING SYSTEM.
069            NATIONAL AIR                        26,639                                                 26,639
                SPACE SYSTEM.
070            FLEET AIR                            9,214                                                  9,214
                TRAFFIC
                CONTROL
                SYSTEMS.
071            LANDING SYSTEMS                     13,902                                                 13,902
072            ID SYSTEMS.....                     34,901                                                 34,901
073            NAVAL MISSION                       13,950                                                 13,950
                PLANNING
                SYSTEMS.
               OTHER SHORE
                ELECTRONIC
                EQUIPMENT
074            DEPLOYABLE                           1,205                                                  1,205
                JOINT COMMAND
                & CONTROL.
075            MARITIME                             3,447                                                  3,447
                INTEGRATED
                BROADCAST
                SYSTEM.
076            TACTICAL/MOBILE                     16,766                                                 16,766
                C4I SYSTEMS.
077            DCGS-N.........                     23,649                                                 23,649
078            CANES..........                    357,589                                                357,589
079            RADIAC.........                      8,343                                                  8,343
080            CANES-INTELL...                     65,015                                                 65,015
081            GPETE..........                      6,284                                                  6,284
082            INTEG COMBAT                         4,016                                                  4,016
                SYSTEM TEST
                FACILITY.
083            EMI CONTROL                          4,113                                                  4,113
                INSTRUMENTATIO
                N.
084            ITEMS LESS THAN                     45,053                                                 45,053
                $5 MILLION.
               SHIPBOARD
                COMMUNICATIONS
085            SHIPBOARD                           14,410                                                 14,410
                TACTICAL
                COMMUNICATIONS.
086            SHIP                                20,830                                                 20,830
                COMMUNICATIONS
                AUTOMATION.
088            COMMUNICATIONS                      14,145                                                 14,145
                ITEMS UNDER
                $5M.
               SUBMARINE
                COMMUNICATIONS
089            SUBMARINE                           11,057                                                 11,057
                BROADCAST
                SUPPORT.
090            SUBMARINE                           67,852                                                 67,852
                COMMUNICATION
                EQUIPMENT.
               SATELLITE
                COMMUNICATIONS
091            SATELLITE                           13,218                         50                      13,268
                COMMUNICATIONS
                SYSTEMS.
                   CVN 73                                                        [50]
                   Refueling
                   and Complex
                   Overhaul
                   (RCOH).
092            NAVY MULTIBAND                     272,076                                                272,076
                TERMINAL (NMT).
               SHORE
                COMMUNICATIONS
093            JCS                                  4,369                                                  4,369
                COMMUNICATIONS
                EQUIPMENT.
094            ELECTRICAL                           1,402                                                  1,402
                POWER SYSTEMS.
               CRYPTOGRAPHIC
                EQUIPMENT
095            INFO SYSTEMS                       110,766                                                110,766
                SECURITY
                PROGRAM (ISSP).
096            MIO INTEL                              979                                                    979
                EXPLOITATION
                TEAM.
               CRYPTOLOGIC
                EQUIPMENT
097            CRYPTOLOGIC                         11,502                                                 11,502
                COMMUNICATIONS
                EQUIP.
               OTHER
                ELECTRONIC
                SUPPORT
098            COAST GUARD                          2,967                                                  2,967
                EQUIPMENT.
               SONOBUOYS
100            SONOBUOYS--ALL                     182,946                                                182,946
                TYPES.
               AIRCRAFT
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
101            WEAPONS RANGE                       47,944                                                 47,944
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
103            AIRCRAFT                            76,683                                                 76,683
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
106            METEOROLOGICAL                      12,575                        300                      12,875
                EQUIPMENT.
                   CVN 73                                                       [300]
                   Refueling
                   and Complex
                   Overhaul
                   (RCOH).
107            DCRS/DPL.......                      1,415                                                  1,415
109            AIRBORNE MINE                       23,152                                                 23,152
                COUNTERMEASURE
                S.
114            AVIATION                            52,555                                                 52,555
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
               SHIP GUN SYSTEM
                EQUIPMENT
115            SHIP GUN                             5,572                                                  5,572
                SYSTEMS
                EQUIPMENT.
               SHIP MISSILE
                SYSTEMS
                EQUIPMENT
118            SHIP MISSILE                       165,769                                                165,769
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
123            TOMAHAWK                            61,462                                                 61,462
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
               FBM SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
126            STRATEGIC                          229,832                                                229,832
                MISSILE
                SYSTEMS EQUIP.
               ASW SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
127            SSN COMBAT                          66,020                                                 66,020
                CONTROL
                SYSTEMS.
128            ASW SUPPORT                          7,559                                                  7,559
                EQUIPMENT.
               OTHER ORDNANCE
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
132            EXPLOSIVE                           20,619                                                 20,619
                ORDNANCE
                DISPOSAL EQUIP.
133            ITEMS LESS THAN                     11,251                                                 11,251
                $5 MILLION.
               OTHER
                EXPENDABLE
                ORDNANCE
137            TRAINING DEVICE                     84,080                                                 84,080
                MODS.
               CIVIL
                ENGINEERING
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
138            PASSENGER                            2,282                                                  2,282
                CARRYING
                VEHICLES.
139            GENERAL PURPOSE                        547                                                    547
                TRUCKS.
140            CONSTRUCTION &                       8,949                                                  8,949
                MAINTENANCE
                EQUIP.
141            FIRE FIGHTING                       14,621                                                 14,621
                EQUIPMENT.
142            TACTICAL                               957                                                    957
                VEHICLES.
143            AMPHIBIOUS                           8,187                                                  8,187
                EQUIPMENT.
144            POLLUTION                            2,942                                                  2,942
                CONTROL
                EQUIPMENT.
145            ITEMS UNDER $5                      17,592                                                 17,592
                MILLION.
146            PHYSICAL                             1,177                                                  1,177
                SECURITY
                VEHICLES.
               SUPPLY SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
147            MATERIALS                           10,937                                                 10,937
                HANDLING
                EQUIPMENT.
148            OTHER SUPPLY                        10,374                                                 10,374
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
149            FIRST                                5,668                                                  5,668
                DESTINATION
                TRANSPORTATION.
150            SPECIAL PURPOSE                     90,921                                                 90,921
                SUPPLY SYSTEMS.
               TRAINING
                DEVICES
151            TRAINING                            22,046                                                 22,046
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
               COMMAND SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
152            COMMAND SUPPORT                     24,208                                                 24,208
                EQUIPMENT.
153            EDUCATION                              874                                                    874
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
154            MEDICAL SUPPORT                      2,634                                                  2,634
                EQUIPMENT.
156            NAVAL MIP                            3,573                                                  3,573
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
157            OPERATING                            3,997                                                  3,997
                FORCES SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
158            C4ISR EQUIPMENT                      9,638                                                  9,638
159            ENVIRONMENTAL                       21,001                                                 21,001
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
160            PHYSICAL                            94,957                                                 94,957
                SECURITY
                EQUIPMENT.
161            ENTERPRISE                          87,214                                                 87,214
                INFORMATION
                TECHNOLOGY.
               OTHER
164            NEXT GENERATION                    116,165                                                116,165
                ENTERPRISE
                SERVICE.
               CLASSIFIED
                PROGRAMS
164A           CLASSIFIED                          10,847                                                 10,847
                PROGRAMS.
               SPARES AND
                REPAIR PARTS
165            SPARES AND                         325,084                         50                     325,134
                REPAIR PARTS.
                   CVN 73                                                        [50]
                   Refueling
                   and Complex
                   Overhaul
                   (RCOH).
                    TOTAL                       5,975,828                    222,300                   6,198,128
                    OTHER
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, NAVY.
 
               PROCUREMENT,
                MARINE CORPS
               TRACKED COMBAT
                VEHICLES
001            AAV7A1 PIP.....                     16,756                                                 16,756
002            LAV PIP........                     77,736                                                 77,736
               ARTILLERY AND
                OTHER WEAPONS
003            EXPEDITIONARY                        5,742                     -5,100                         642
                FIRE SUPPORT
                SYSTEM.
                   Per Marine                                                [-5,100]
                   Corps
                   excess to
                   need.
004            155MM                                4,532                                                  4,532
                LIGHTWEIGHT
                TOWED HOWITZER.
005            HIGH MOBILITY                       19,474                                                 19,474
                ARTILLERY
                ROCKET SYSTEM.
006            WEAPONS AND                          7,250                                                  7,250
                COMBAT
                VEHICLES UNDER
                $5 MILLION.
               OTHER SUPPORT
007            MODIFICATION                        21,909                                                 21,909
                KITS.
008            WEAPONS                              3,208                                                  3,208
                ENHANCEMENT
                PROGRAM.
               GUIDED MISSILES
009            GROUND BASED                        31,439                                                 31,439
                AIR DEFENSE.
010            JAVELIN........                        343                                                    343
011            FOLLOW ON TO                         4,995                                                  4,995
                SMAW.
012            ANTI-ARMOR                           1,589                                                  1,589
                WEAPONS SYSTEM-
                HEAVY (AAWS-H).
               OTHER SUPPORT
013            MODIFICATION                         5,134                                                  5,134
                KITS.
               COMMAND AND
                CONTROL
                SYSTEMS
014            UNIT OPERATIONS                      9,178                                                  9,178
                CENTER.
015            COMMON AVIATION                     12,272                                                 12,272
                COMMAND AND
                CONTROL SYSTEM
                (C.
               REPAIR AND TEST
                EQUIPMENT
016            REPAIR AND TEST                     30,591                                                 30,591
                EQUIPMENT.
               OTHER SUPPORT
                (TEL)
017            COMBAT SUPPORT                       2,385                                                  2,385
                SYSTEM.
               COMMAND AND
                CONTROL SYSTEM
                (NON-TEL)
019            ITEMS UNDER $5                       4,205                                                  4,205
                MILLION (COMM
                & ELEC).
020            AIR OPERATIONS                       8,002                                                  8,002
                C2 SYSTEMS.
               RADAR +
                EQUIPMENT (NON-
                TEL)
021            RADAR SYSTEMS..                     19,595                                                 19,595
022            U..............          2          89,230                                      2          89,230
023            RQ-21 UAS......          3          70,565                                      3          70,565
               INTELL/COMM
                EQUIPMENT (NON-
                TEL)
024            FIRE SUPPORT                        11,860                                                 11,860
                SYSTEM.
025            INTELLIGENCE                        44,340                                                 44,340
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
028            RQ-11 UAV......                      2,737                                                  2,737
030            DCGS-MC........                     20,620                                                 20,620
               OTHER COMM/ELEC
                EQUIPMENT (NON-
                TEL)
031            NIGHT VISION                         9,798                                                  9,798
                EQUIPMENT.
               OTHER SUPPORT
                (NON-TEL)
032            NEXT GENERATION                      2,073                                                  2,073
                ENTERPRISE
                NETWORK (NGEN).
033            COMMON COMPUTER                     33,570                                                 33,570
                RESOURCES.
034            COMMAND POST                        38,186                                                 38,186
                SYSTEMS.
035            RADIO SYSTEMS..                     64,494                                                 64,494
036            COMM SWITCHING                      72,956                                                 72,956
                & CONTROL
                SYSTEMS.
037            COMM & ELEC                         43,317                                                 43,317
                INFRASTRUCTURE
                SUPPORT.
               CLASSIFIED
                PROGRAMS
037A           CLASSIFIED                           2,498                                                  2,498
                PROGRAMS.
               ADMINISTRATIVE
                VEHICLES
038            COMMERCIAL                             332                                                    332
                PASSENGER
                VEHICLES.
039            COMMERCIAL                          11,035                                                 11,035
                CARGO VEHICLES.
               TACTICAL
                VEHICLES
040            5/4T TRUCK                          57,255                    -20,000                      37,255
                HMMWV (MYP).
                   Early to                                                 [-20,000]
                   need.
041            MOTOR TRANSPORT                        938                                                    938
                MODIFICATIONS.
044            JOINT LIGHT              7           7,500                                      7           7,500
                TACTICAL
                VEHICLE.
045            FAMILY OF                           10,179                                                 10,179
                TACTICAL
                TRAILERS.
               OTHER SUPPORT
046            ITEMS LESS THAN                     11,023                                                 11,023
                $5 MILLION.
               ENGINEER AND
                OTHER
                EQUIPMENT
047            ENVIRONMENTAL                          994                                                    994
                CONTROL EQUIP
                ASSORT.
048            BULK LIQUID                          1,256                                                  1,256
                EQUIPMENT.
049            TACTICAL FUEL                        3,750                                                  3,750
                SYSTEMS.
050            POWER EQUIPMENT                      8,985                                                  8,985
                ASSORTED.
051            AMPHIBIOUS                           4,418                                                  4,418
                SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT.
052            EOD SYSTEMS....                      6,528                                                  6,528
               MATERIALS
                HANDLING
                EQUIPMENT
053            PHYSICAL                            26,510                                                 26,510
                SECURITY
                EQUIPMENT.
054            GARRISON MOBILE                      1,910                                                  1,910
                ENGINEER
                EQUIPMENT
                (GMEE).
055            MATERIAL                             8,807                                                  8,807
                HANDLING EQUIP.
056            FIRST                                  128                                                    128
                DESTINATION
                TRANSPORTATION.
               GENERAL
                PROPERTY
058            TRAINING                             3,412                                                  3,412
                DEVICES.
059            CONTAINER                            1,662                                                  1,662
                FAMILY.
060            FAMILY OF                            3,669                                                  3,669
                CONSTRUCTION
                EQUIPMENT.
               OTHER SUPPORT
062            ITEMS LESS THAN                      4,272                                                  4,272
                $5 MILLION.
               SPARES AND
                REPAIR PARTS
063            SPARES AND                          16,210                                                 16,210
                REPAIR PARTS.
                    TOTAL              12         983,352                    -25,100          12         958,252
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, MARINE
                    CORPS.
 
               AIRCRAFT
                PROCUREMENT,
                AIR FORCE
               TACTICAL FORCES
001            F-35...........         26       3,553,046                                     26       3,553,046
002               ADVANCE                         291,880                                                291,880
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
               TACTICAL
                AIRLIFT
003            KC-46A TANKER..          7       1,582,685         -1        -226,100           6       1,356,585
                   LRIP 1 Ramp                                  [-1]       [-226,100]
                   Rate.
               OTHER AIRLIFT
004            C-130J.........          7         482,396                                      7         482,396
005               ADVANCE                         140,000                                                140,000
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
006            HC-130J........          4         332,024                                      4         332,024
007               ADVANCE                          50,000                                                 50,000
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
008            MC-130J........          2         190,971                                      2         190,971
009               ADVANCE                          80,000                                                 80,000
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
               MISSION SUPPORT
                AIRCRAFT
012            CIVIL AIR                6           2,562                                      6           2,562
                PATROL A/C.
               OTHER AIRCRAFT
013            TARGET DRONES..         37          98,576                                     37          98,576
016            RQ-4...........                     54,475                    -10,000                      44,475
                   MPRTIP                                                   [-10,000]
                   Sensor
                   Trainer
                   reduction.
017            AC-130J........                          1                                                      1
018            MQ-9...........         12         240,218          8         120,000          20         360,218
                   Program                                       [8]        [120,000]
                   increase.
               STRATEGIC
                AIRCRAFT
020            B-2A...........                     23,865                                                 23,865
021            B-1B...........                    140,252                                                140,252
022            B-52...........                    180,148                                                180,148
023            LARGE AIRCRAFT                      13,159                                                 13,159
                INFRARED
                COUNTERMEASURE
                S.
               TACTICAL
                AIRCRAFT
025            F-15...........                    387,314                                                387,314
026            F-16...........                     12,336                                                 12,336
027            F-22A..........                    180,207                                                180,207
028            F-35                               187,646                                                187,646
                MODIFICATIONS.
029               ADVANCE                          28,500                                                 28,500
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
               AIRLIFT
                AIRCRAFT
030            C-5............                     14,731                                                 14,731
031            C-5M...........                    331,466                    -50,000                     281,466
                   Program                                                  [-50,000]
                   execution
                   delay.
033            C-17A..........                    127,494                                                127,494
034            C-21...........                        264                                                    264
035            C-32A..........                      8,767                                                  8,767
036            C-37A..........                     18,457                                                 18,457
               TRAINER
                AIRCRAFT
038            GLIDER MODS....                        132                                                    132
039            T-6............                     14,486                                                 14,486
040            T-1............                      7,650                                                  7,650
041            T-38...........                     34,845                                                 34,845
               OTHER AIRCRAFT
044            KC-10A (ATCA)..                     34,313                                                 34,313
045            C-12...........                      1,960                                                  1,960
048            VC-25A MOD.....                      1,072                                                  1,072
049            C-40...........                      7,292                                                  7,292
050            C-130..........                     35,869                     73,802                     109,671
                   8.33kHz                                                   [-7,447]
                   radios.
                   C-130 8-                                                  [30,000]
                   Bladed
                   Propeller
                   upgrade.
                   C-130 AMP..                                               [35,800]
                   CVR/DVR....                                               [-7,151]
                   T-56 3.5                                                  [22,600]
                   Engine Mod.
051            C-130J MODS....                      7,919                                                  7,919
052            C-135..........                     63,568                                                 63,568
053            COMPASS CALL                        57,828                                                 57,828
                MODS.
054            RC-135.........                    152,746                                                152,746
055            E-3............                     16,491                     12,857                      29,348
                   Program                                                   [12,857]
                   increase.
056            E-4............                     22,341                                                 22,341
058            AIRBORNE                           160,284                                                160,284
                WARNING AND
                CONTROL SYSTEM.
059            FAMILY OF                           32,026                                                 32,026
                BEYOND LINE-OF-
                SIGHT
                TERMINALS.
060            H-1............                      8,237                                                  8,237
061            H-60...........                     60,110                                                 60,110
062            RQ-4 MODS......                     21,354                                                 21,354
063            HC/MC-130                            1,902                                                  1,902
                MODIFICATIONS.
064            OTHER AIRCRAFT.                     32,106                                                 32,106
065            MQ-1 MODS......                      4,755                     -3,200                       1,555
                   Program                                                   [-3,200]
                   reduction.
066            MQ-9 MODS......                    155,445                                                155,445
069            CV-22 MODS.....                     74,874                                                 74,874
069A           EJECTION SEAT                                                   7,000                       7,000
                RELIABILITY
                IMPROVEMENT
                PROGRAM.
                   Initial                                                    [7,000]
                   aircraft
                   installatio
                   n.
               AIRCRAFT SPARES
                AND REPAIR
                PARTS
070            INITIAL SPARES/                    466,562                    -42,030                     424,532
                REPAIR PARTS.
                   Program                                                  [-42,030]
                   decrease.
               COMMON SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
071            AIRCRAFT                            22,470                                                 22,470
                REPLACEMENT
                SUPPORT EQUIP.
               POST PRODUCTION
                SUPPORT
074            B-2A...........                     44,793                                                 44,793
075            B-52...........                      5,249                                                  5,249
077            C-17A..........                     20,110                     -5,000                      15,110
                   Program                                                   [-5,000]
                   execution
                   delay.
078            CV-22 POST                          16,931                                                 16,931
                PRODUCTION
                SUPPORT.
080            C-135..........                      4,414                                                  4,414
081            F-15...........                      1,122                                                  1,122
082            F-16...........                     10,994                                                 10,994
083            F-22A..........                      5,929                                                  5,929
084            OTHER AIRCRAFT.                         27                                                     27
               INDUSTRIAL
                PREPAREDNESS
085            INDUSTRIAL                          21,363                                                 21,363
                RESPONSIVENESS.
               WAR CONSUMABLES
086            WAR CONSUMABLES                     82,906                                                 82,906
               OTHER
                PRODUCTION
                CHARGES
087            OTHER                            1,007,276                                              1,007,276
                PRODUCTION
                CHARGES.
               CLASSIFIED
                PROGRAMS
087A           CLASSIFIED                          69,380                                                 69,380
                PROGRAMS.
                    TOTAL             101      11,542,571          7        -122,671         108      11,419,900
                    AIRCRAFT
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, AIR
                    FORCE.
 
               MISSILE
                PROCUREMENT,
                AIR FORCE
               MISSILE
                REPLACEMENT
                EQUIPMENT--BAL
                LISTIC
001            MISSILE                             80,187                                                 80,187
                REPLACEMENT EQ-
                BALLISTIC.
               TACTICAL
003            JOINT AIR-             224         337,438                                    224         337,438
                SURFACE
                STANDOFF
                MISSILE.
004            SIDEWINDER (AIM-       303         132,995                                    303         132,995
                9X).
005            AMRAAM.........        200         329,600                                    200         329,600
006            PREDATOR               283          33,878                                    283          33,878
                HELLFIRE
                MISSILE.
007            SMALL DIAMETER         246          70,578                                    246          70,578
                BOMB.
               INDUSTRIAL
                FACILITIES
008            INDUSTR'L                              749                                                    749
                PREPAREDNS/POL
                PREVENTION.
               CLASS IV
009            MM III                              28,477                                                 28,477
                MODIFICATIONS.
010            AGM-65D                                276                                                    276
                MAVERICK.
011            AGM-88A HARM...                        297                                                    297
012            AIR LAUNCH                          16,083                                                 16,083
                CRUISE MISSILE
                (ALCM).
013            SMALL DIAMETER                       6,924                                                  6,924
                BOMB.
               MISSILE SPARES
                AND REPAIR
                PARTS
014            INITIAL SPARES/                     87,366                                                 87,366
                REPAIR PARTS.
               SPACE PROGRAMS
015            ADVANCED EHF...                    298,890                                                298,890
016            WIDEBAND                            38,971                     -3,000                      35,971
                GAPFILLER
                SATELLITES(SPA
                CE).
                   Unjustified                                               [-3,000]
                   growth.
017            GPS III SPACE            1         235,397                                      1         235,397
                SEGMENT.
018               ADVANCE                          57,000                                                 57,000
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
019            SPACEBORNE                          16,201                                                 16,201
                EQUIP (COMSEC).
020            GLOBAL                              52,090                                                 52,090
                POSITIONING
                (SPACE).
021            DEF                                 87,000                                                 87,000
                METEOROLOGICAL
                SAT
                PROG(SPACE).
022            EVOLVED                            750,143                                                750,143
                EXPENDABLE
                LAUNCH VEH
                (INFRAST.).
023            EVOLVED                  3         630,903                    135,000           3         765,903
                EXPENDABLE
                LAUNCH
                VEH(SPACE).
                   DMSP 20                                                  [135,000]
                   launch/
                   Additional
                   competition
                   launch.
024            SBIR HIGH                          450,884                                                450,884
                (SPACE).
               SPECIAL
                PROGRAMS
028            SPECIAL UPDATE                      60,179                                                 60,179
                PROGRAMS.
               CLASSIFIED
                PROGRAMS
028A           CLASSIFIED                         888,000                                                888,000
                PROGRAMS.
                    TOTAL           1,260       4,690,506                    132,000       1,260       4,822,506
                    MISSILE
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, AIR
                    FORCE.
 
               PROCUREMENT OF
                AMMUNITION,
                AIR FORCE
               ROCKETS
001            ROCKETS........                      4,696                                                  4,696
               CARTRIDGES
002            CARTRIDGES.....                    133,271                                                133,271
               BOMBS
003            PRACTICE BOMBS.                     31,998                                                 31,998
004            GENERAL PURPOSE                    148,614                                                148,614
                BOMBS.
005            JOINT DIRECT         2,973         101,400                                  2,973         101,400
                ATTACK
                MUNITION.
               OTHER ITEMS
006            CAD/PAD........                     29,989                                                 29,989
007            EXPLOSIVE                            6,925                                                  6,925
                ORDNANCE
                DISPOSAL (EOD).
008            SPARES AND                             494                                                    494
                REPAIR PARTS.
009            MODIFICATIONS..                      1,610                                                  1,610
010            ITEMS LESS THAN                      4,237                                                  4,237
                $5 MILLION.
               FLARES
011            FLARES.........                     86,101                                                 86,101
               FUZES
012            FUZES..........                    103,417                                                103,417
               SMALL ARMS
013            SMALL ARMS.....                     24,648                                                 24,648
                    TOTAL           2,973         677,400                                  2,973         677,400
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T OF
                    AMMUNITION
                    , AIR
                    FORCE.
 
               OTHER
                PROCUREMENT,
                AIR FORCE
               PASSENGER
                CARRYING
                VEHICLES
001            PASSENGER                            6,528                     -4,000                       2,528
                CARRYING
                VEHICLES.
                   Program                                                   [-4,000]
                   reduction.
               CARGO AND
                UTILITY
                VEHICLES
002            MEDIUM TACTICAL                      7,639                     -5,000                       2,639
                VEHICLE.
                   Program                                                   [-5,000]
                   reduction.
003            CAP VEHICLES...                        961                                                    961
004            ITEMS LESS THAN                     11,027                     -6,000                       5,027
                $5 MILLION.
                   Program                                                   [-6,000]
                   reduction.
               SPECIAL PURPOSE
                VEHICLES
005            SECURITY AND                         4,447                                                  4,447
                TACTICAL
                VEHICLES.
006            ITEMS LESS THAN                        693                                                    693
                $5 MILLION.
               FIRE FIGHTING
                EQUIPMENT
007            FIRE FIGHTING/                      10,152                                                 10,152
                CRASH RESCUE
                VEHICLES.
               MATERIALS
                HANDLING
                EQUIPMENT
008            ITEMS LESS THAN                     15,108                    -10,000                       5,108
                $5 MILLION.
                   Program                                                  [-10,000]
                   reduction.
               BASE
                MAINTENANCE
                SUPPORT
009            RUNWAY SNOW                         10,212                     -4,000                       6,212
                REMOV &
                CLEANING EQUIP.
                   Program                                                   [-4,000]
                   reduction.
010            ITEMS LESS THAN                     57,049                    -25,000                      32,049
                $5 MILLION.
                   Program                                                  [-25,000]
                   reduction.
               COMM SECURITY
                EQUIPMENT(COMS
                EC)
011            COMSEC                             106,182                                                106,182
                EQUIPMENT.
012            MODIFICATIONS                        1,363                                                  1,363
                (COMSEC).
               INTELLIGENCE
                PROGRAMS
013            INTELLIGENCE                         2,832                                                  2,832
                TRAINING
                EQUIPMENT.
014            INTELLIGENCE                        32,329                                                 32,329
                COMM EQUIPMENT.
016            MISSION                             15,649                                                 15,649
                PLANNING
                SYSTEMS.
               ELECTRONICS
                PROGRAMS
017            AIR TRAFFIC                         42,200                                                 42,200
                CONTROL &
                LANDING SYS.
018            NATIONAL                             6,333                                                  6,333
                AIRSPACE
                SYSTEM.
019            BATTLE CONTROL                       2,708                                                  2,708
                SYSTEM--FIXED.
020            THEATER AIR                         50,033                    -10,000                      40,033
                CONTROL SYS
                IMPROVEMENTS.
                   Program                                                  [-10,000]
                   reduction.
021            WEATHER                             16,348                                                 16,348
                OBSERVATION
                FORECAST.
022            STRATEGIC                          139,984                                                139,984
                COMMAND AND
                CONTROL.
023            CHEYENNE                            20,101                                                 20,101
                MOUNTAIN
                COMPLEX.
026            INTEGRATED                           9,060                                                  9,060
                STRAT PLAN &
                ANALY NETWORK
                (ISPAN).
               SPCL COMM-
                ELECTRONICS
                PROJECTS
027            GENERAL                             39,100                                                 39,100
                INFORMATION
                TECHNOLOGY.
028            AF GLOBAL                           19,010                                                 19,010
                COMMAND &
                CONTROL SYS.
029            MOBILITY                            11,462                                                 11,462
                COMMAND AND
                CONTROL.
030            AIR FORCE                           37,426                                                 37,426
                PHYSICAL
                SECURITY
                SYSTEM.
031            COMBAT TRAINING                     26,634                                                 26,634
                RANGES.
032            MINIMUM                              1,289                                                  1,289
                ESSENTIAL
                EMERGENCY COMM
                N.
033            C3                                  11,508                                                 11,508
                COUNTERMEASURE
                S.
034            GCSS-AF FOS....                      3,670                                                  3,670
035            DEFENSE                             15,298                                                 15,298
                ENTERPRISE
                ACCOUNTING AND
                MGMT SYSTEM.
036            THEATER BATTLE                       9,565                                                  9,565
                MGT C2 SYSTEM.
037            AIR & SPACE                         25,772                                                 25,772
                OPERATIONS CTR-
                WPN SYS.
               AIR FORCE
                COMMUNICATIONS
038            INFORMATION                         81,286                     31,300                     112,586
                TRANSPORT
                SYSTEMS.
                   Air Force                                                 [31,300]
                   requested
                   program
                   transfer
                   from AFNET.
039            AFNET..........                    122,228                    -31,300                      90,928
                   Air Force                                                [-31,300]
                   requested
                   program
                   transfer to
                   BITI.
041            USCENTCOM......                     16,342                                                 16,342
               SPACE PROGRAMS
042            FAMILY OF                           60,230                                                 60,230
                BEYOND LINE-OF-
                SIGHT
                TERMINALS.
043            SPACE BASED IR                      26,100                                                 26,100
                SENSOR PGM
                SPACE.
044            NAVSTAR GPS                          2,075                                                  2,075
                SPACE.
045            NUDET DETECTION                      4,656                                                  4,656
                SYS SPACE.
046            AF SATELLITE                        54,630                                                 54,630
                CONTROL
                NETWORK SPACE.
047            SPACELIFT RANGE                     69,713                                                 69,713
                SYSTEM SPACE.
048            MILSATCOM SPACE                     41,355                                                 41,355
049            SPACE MODS                          31,722                                                 31,722
                SPACE.
050            COUNTERSPACE                        61,603                                                 61,603
                SYSTEM.
               ORGANIZATION
                AND BASE
051            TACTICAL C-E                        50,335                                                 50,335
                EQUIPMENT.
053            RADIO EQUIPMENT                     14,846                                                 14,846
054            CCTV/                                3,635                                                  3,635
                AUDIOVISUAL
                EQUIPMENT.
055            BASE COMM                           79,607                                                 79,607
                INFRASTRUCTURE.
               MODIFICATIONS
056            COMM ELECT MODS                    105,398                                                105,398
               PERSONAL SAFETY
                & RESCUE EQUIP
057            NIGHT VISION                        12,577                                                 12,577
                GOGGLES.
058            ITEMS LESS THAN                     31,209                                                 31,209
                $5 MILLION.
               DEPOT
                PLANT+MTRLS
                HANDLING EQ
059            MECHANIZED                           7,670                                                  7,670
                MATERIAL
                HANDLING EQUIP.
               BASE SUPPORT
                EQUIPMENT
060            BASE PROCURED                       14,125                                                 14,125
                EQUIPMENT.
061            CONTINGENCY                         16,744                                                 16,744
                OPERATIONS.
062            PRODUCTIVITY                         2,495                                                  2,495
                CAPITAL
                INVESTMENT.
063            MOBILITY                            10,573                                                 10,573
                EQUIPMENT.
064            ITEMS LESS THAN                      5,462                                                  5,462
                $5 MILLION.
               SPECIAL SUPPORT
                PROJECTS
066            DARP RC135.....                     24,710                                                 24,710
067            DCGS-AF........                    206,743                                                206,743
069            SPECIAL UPDATE                     537,370                                                537,370
                PROGRAM.
070            DEFENSE SPACE                       77,898                                                 77,898
                RECONNAISSANCE
                PROG..
               CLASSIFIED
                PROGRAMS
070A           CLASSIFIED                      13,990,196                                             13,990,196
                PROGRAMS.
               SPARES AND
                REPAIR PARTS
072            SPARES AND                          32,813                                                 32,813
                REPAIR PARTS.
                    TOTAL                      16,566,018                    -64,000                  16,502,018
                    OTHER
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, AIR
                    FORCE.
 
               PROCUREMENT,
                DEFENSE-WIDE
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT,
                DCAA
001            ITEMS LESS THAN                      1,594                                                  1,594
                $5 MILLION.
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT,
                DCMA
002            MAJOR EQUIPMENT                      4,325                                                  4,325
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT,
                DHRA
003            PERSONNEL                           17,268                                                 17,268
                ADMINISTRATION.
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT,
                DISA
008            INFORMATION                         10,491                                                 10,491
                SYSTEMS
                SECURITY.
010            TELEPORT                            80,622                                                 80,622
                PROGRAM.
011            ITEMS LESS THAN                     14,147                                                 14,147
                $5 MILLION.
012            NET CENTRIC                          1,921                                                  1,921
                ENTERPRISE
                SERVICES
                (NCES).
013            DEFENSE                             80,144                                                 80,144
                INFORMATION
                SYSTEM NETWORK.
015            CYBER SECURITY                       8,755                                                  8,755
                INITIATIVE.
016            WHITE HOUSE                         33,737                                                 33,737
                COMMUNICATION
                AGENCY.
017            SENIOR                              32,544                                                 32,544
                LEADERSHIP
                ENTERPRISE.
018            JOINT                               13,300                                                 13,300
                INFORMATION
                ENVIRONMENT.
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT, DLA
020            MAJOR EQUIPMENT                      7,436                                                  7,436
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT,
                DMACT
021            MAJOR EQUIPMENT          3          11,640                                      3          11,640
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT,
                DODEA
022            AUTOMATION/                          1,269                                                  1,269
                EDUCATIONAL
                SUPPORT &
                LOGISTICS.
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT, DSS
024            VEHICLES.......                      1,500                                                  1,500
025            MAJOR EQUIPMENT                      1,039                                                  1,039
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT,
                DEFENSE THREAT
                REDUCTION
                AGENCY
026            VEHICLES.......          1              50                                      1              50
027            OTHER MAJOR              3           7,639                                      3           7,639
                EQUIPMENT.
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT,
                MISSILE
                DEFENSE AGENCY
028               ADVANCE                          68,880                                                 68,880
                  PROCUREMENT
                  (CY).
029            THAAD..........         31         464,424                                     31         464,424
030            AEGIS BMD......         30         435,430                                     30         435,430
031            BMDS AN/TPY-2                       48,140                                                 48,140
                RADARS.
032            AEGIS ASHORE                       225,774                                                225,774
                PHASE III.
034            IRON DOME......          1         175,972                    176,000           1         351,972
                   Program                                                  [176,000]
                   increase
                   for Iron
                   Dome.
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT, NSA
041            INFORMATION                          3,448                                                  3,448
                SYSTEMS
                SECURITY
                PROGRAM (ISSP).
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT, OSD
042            MAJOR                               43,708                                                 43,708
                EQUIPMENT, OSD.
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT, TJS
044            MAJOR                               10,783                                                 10,783
                EQUIPMENT, TJS.
               MAJOR
                EQUIPMENT, WHS
046            MAJOR                               29,599                                                 29,599
                EQUIPMENT, WHS.
               CLASSIFIED
                PROGRAMS
046A           CLASSIFIED                         540,894                                                540,894
                PROGRAMS.
               AVIATION
                PROGRAMS
047            MC-12..........                     40,500                                                 40,500
048            ROTARY WING                        112,226                                                112,226
                UPGRADES AND
                SUSTAINMENT.
049            MH-60                                3,021                                                  3,021
                MODERNIZATION
                PROGRAM.
050            NON-STANDARD                        48,200                                                 48,200
                AVIATION.
052            MH-47 CHINOOK..                     22,230                                                 22,230
053            RQ-11 UNMANNED                       6,397                                                  6,397
                AERIAL VEHICLE.
054            CV-22                               25,578                                                 25,578
                MODIFICATION.
056            MQ-9 UNMANNED                       15,651                                                 15,651
                AERIAL VEHICLE.
057            STUASL0........                      1,500                                                  1,500
058            PRECISION                          145,929                                                145,929
                STRIKE PACKAGE.
059            AC/MC-130J.....                     65,130                                                 65,130
061            C-130                               39,563                                                 39,563
                MODIFICATIONS.
               SHIPBUILDING
063            UNDERWATER                          25,459                                                 25,459
                SYSTEMS.
               AMMUNITION
                PROGRAMS
065            ORDNANCE ITEMS                     144,336                                                144,336
                <$5M.
               OTHER
                PROCUREMENT
                PROGRAMS
068            INTELLIGENCE                        81,001                                                 81,001
                SYSTEMS.
070            DISTRIBUTED                         17,323                     -3,900                      13,423
                COMMON GROUND/
                SURFACE
                SYSTEMS.
                   Reduction                                                 [-3,900]
                   of PED
                   Ground
                   Systems.
071            OTHER ITEMS                         84,852                                                 84,852
                <$5M.
072            COMBATANT CRAFT                     51,937                                                 51,937
                SYSTEMS.
074            SPECIAL                             31,017                                                 31,017
                PROGRAMS.
075            TACTICAL                            63,134                                                 63,134
                VEHICLES.
076            WARRIOR SYSTEMS                    192,448                                                192,448
                <$5M.
078            COMBAT MISSION                      19,984                                                 19,984
                REQUIREMENTS.
081            GLOBAL VIDEO                         5,044                                                  5,044
                SURVEILLANCE
                ACTIVITIES.
082            OPERATIONAL                         38,126                                                 38,126
                ENHANCEMENTS
                INTELLIGENCE.
088            OPERATIONAL                        243,849                                                243,849
                ENHANCEMENTS.
               CBDP
095            CHEMICAL                           170,137                                                170,137
                BIOLOGICAL
                SITUATIONAL
                AWARENESS.
096            CB PROTECTION &                    150,392                                                150,392
                HAZARD
                MITIGATION.
                    TOTAL              69       4,221,437                    172,100          69       4,393,537
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T, DEFENSE-
                    WIDE.
 
               JOINT URGENT
                OPERATIONAL
                NEEDS FUND
001            JOINT URGENT                        20,000                    -20,000                           0
                OPERATIONAL
                NEEDS FUND.
                   Unjustified                                              [-20,000]
                   request.
                    TOTAL                          20,000                    -20,000                           0
                    JOINT
                    URGENT
                    OPERATIONA
                    L NEEDS
                    FUND.
 
 
               PRIOR YEAR
                RESCISSIONS
001            PRIOR YEAR                        -265,685                    265,685                           0
                RESCISSIONS.
                   Denied                                                   [265,685]
                   Prior Year
                   Rescission
                   request.
                    TOTAL                        -265,685                    265,685                           0
                    PRIOR YEAR
                    RESCISSION
                    S.
 
               UNDISTRIBUTED
                GENERAL
                PROVISIONS
001            UNDISTRIBUTED                                                -265,685                    -265,685
                GENERAL
                PROVISIONS.
                   Undistribut                                             [-265,685]
                   ed FY15
                   reduction.
                    TOTAL                                                   -265,685                    -265,685
                    UNDISTRIBU
                    TED
                    GENERAL
                    PROVISIONS.
 
                    TOTAL         158,103      89,508,034        109       1,475,669     158,212      90,983,703
                    PROCUREMEN
                    T.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND
 EVALUATION
 


SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2015                           House
  Line        Program Element                   Item                 Request      House  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         .........................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
                                     & EVAL, ARMY
         .........................  BASIC RESEARCH
   001   0601101A                   IN-HOUSE LABORATORY                  13,464                           13,464
                                     INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
   002   0601102A                   DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES..         238,167                          238,167
   003   0601103A                   UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                  69,808                           69,808
                                     INITIATIVES.
   004   0601104A                   UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY             102,737                          102,737
                                     RESEARCH CENTERS.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.         424,176                          424,176
         .........................
         .........................  APPLIED RESEARCH
   005   0602105A                   MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY.......          28,006                           28,006
   006   0602120A                   SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC               33,515                           33,515
                                     SURVIVABILITY.
   007   0602122A                   TRACTOR HIP................          16,358                           16,358
   008   0602211A                   AVIATION TECHNOLOGY........          63,433                           63,433
   009   0602270A                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   18,502                           18,502
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   010   0602303A                   MISSILE TECHNOLOGY.........          46,194                           46,194
   011   0602307A                   ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY          28,528                           28,528
   012   0602308A                   ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND                27,435                           27,435
                                     SIMULATION.
   013   0602601A                   COMBAT VEHICLE AND                   72,883                           72,883
                                     AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
   014   0602618A                   BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY......          85,597                           85,597
   015   0602622A                   CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND                   3,971                            3,971
                                     EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   016   0602623A                   JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS              6,853                            6,853
                                     PROGRAM.
   017   0602624A                   WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                38,069                           38,069
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   018   0602705A                   ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC           56,435                           56,435
                                     DEVICES.
   019   0602709A                   NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY....          38,445                           38,445
   020   0602712A                   COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS........          25,939                           25,939
   021   0602716A                   HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING            23,783                           23,783
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   022   0602720A                   ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                15,659                           15,659
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   023   0602782A                   COMMAND, CONTROL,                    33,817                           33,817
                                     COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
   024   0602783A                   COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE                10,764                           10,764
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   025   0602784A                   MILITARY ENGINEERING                 63,311                           63,311
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   026   0602785A                   MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING          23,295                           23,295
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   027   0602786A                   WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY......          25,751           2,579           28,330
         .........................      Joint Service Combat                             [2,579]
                                        Feeding Technology.
   028   0602787A                   MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.........          76,068                           76,068
         .........................     SUBTOTAL APPLIED                 862,611           2,579          865,190
                                       RESEARCH.
         .........................
         .........................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT
   029   0603001A                   WARFIGHTER ADVANCED                  65,139             674           65,813
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
         .........................      Joint Service Combat                               [674]
                                        Feeding Tech Demo.
   030   0603002A                   MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY          67,291                           67,291
   031   0603003A                   AVIATION ADVANCED                    88,990                           88,990
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   032   0603004A                   WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                57,931                           57,931
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   033   0603005A                   COMBAT VEHICLE AND                  110,031                          110,031
                                     AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   034   0603006A                   SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED            6,883                            6,883
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   035   0603007A                   MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND              13,580                           13,580
                                     TRAINING ADVANCED
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   036   0603008A                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED          44,871                           44,871
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   037   0603009A                   TRACTOR HIKE...............           7,492                            7,492
   038   0603015A                   NEXT GENERATION TRAINING &           16,749                           16,749
                                     SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
   039   0603020A                   TRACTOR ROSE...............          14,483                           14,483
   041   0603125A                   COMBATING TERRORISM--                24,270                           24,270
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   042   0603130A                   TRACTOR NAIL...............           3,440                            3,440
   043   0603131A                   TRACTOR EGGS...............           2,406                            2,406
   044   0603270A                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   26,057                           26,057
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   045   0603313A                   MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED          44,957                           44,957
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   046   0603322A                   TRACTOR CAGE...............          11,105                           11,105
   047   0603461A                   HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING          181,609                          181,609
                                     MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
   048   0603606A                   LANDMINE WARFARE AND                 13,074                           13,074
                                     BARRIER ADVANCED
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   049   0603607A                   JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS              7,321                            7,321
                                     PROGRAM.
   050   0603710A                   NIGHT VISION ADVANCED                44,138                           44,138
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   051   0603728A                   ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                 9,197                            9,197
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
   052   0603734A                   MILITARY ENGINEERING                 17,613                           17,613
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   053   0603772A                   ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER           39,164                           39,164
                                     SCIENCE AND SENSOR
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                917,791             674          918,465
                                       TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................
         .........................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   054   0603305A                   ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS          12,797                           12,797
                                     INTEGRATION.
   055   0603308A                   ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS                   13,999                           13,999
                                     INTEGRATION.
   058   0603639A                   TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER              29,334                           29,334
                                     AMMUNITION.
   060   0603747A                   SOLDIER SUPPORT AND                   9,602           1,587           11,189
                                     SURVIVABILITY.
         .........................      Food Advanced                                    [1,587]
                                        Development.
   061   0603766A                   TACTICAL ELECTRONIC                   8,953                            8,953
                                     SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
                                     DEV.
   062   0603774A                   NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS                  3,052                            3,052
                                     ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
   063   0603779A                   ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                 7,830                            7,830
                                     TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
   065   0603790A                   NATO RESEARCH AND                     2,954                            2,954
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   067   0603804A                   LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER               13,386                           13,386
                                     EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
   069   0603807A                   MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV...          23,659                           23,659
   070   0603827A                   SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED             6,830           3,000            9,830
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................      Army requested                                   [3,000]
                                        realignment--Caliber
                                        Config Study.
   072   0604100A                   ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES...           9,913                            9,913
   073   0604115A                   TECHNOLOGY MATURATION                74,740                           74,740
                                     INITIATIVES.
   074   0604120A                   ASSURED POSITIONING,                  9,930                            9,930
                                     NAVIGATION AND TIMING
                                     (PNT).
   076   0604319A                   INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION             96,177         -25,000           71,177
                                     CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
                                     INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
         .........................      Schedule delay.........                        [-25,000]
         .........................     SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                323,156         -20,413          302,743
                                       COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                       PROTOTYPES.
         .........................
         .........................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION
   079   0604201A                   AIRCRAFT AVIONICS..........          37,246                           37,246
   081   0604270A                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE                    6,002                            6,002
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   082   0604280A                   JOINT TACTICAL RADIO.......           9,832                            9,832
   083   0604290A                   MID-TIER NETWORKING                   9,730                            9,730
                                     VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
   084   0604321A                   ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM.           5,532                            5,532
   085   0604328A                   TRACTOR CAGE...............          19,929                           19,929
   086   0604601A                   INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS...          27,884           6,702           34,586
         .........................      Army requested                                   [6,702]
                                        realignment.
   087   0604604A                   MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES...             210                              210
   088   0604611A                   JAVELIN....................           4,166                            4,166
   089   0604622A                   FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL             12,913                           12,913
                                     VEHICLES.
   090   0604633A                   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL........          16,764                           16,764
   091   0604641A                   TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND              6,770                            6,770
                                     VEHICLE (TUGV).
   092   0604710A                   NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG            65,333                           65,333
                                     DEV.
   093   0604713A                   COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING,             1,335             562            1,897
                                     AND EQUIPMENT.
         .........................      Military Subsistence                               [562]
                                        Systems.
   094   0604715A                   NON-SYSTEM TRAINING                   8,945                            8,945
                                     DEVICES--ENG DEV.
   096   0604741A                   AIR DEFENSE COMMAND,                 15,906                           15,906
                                     CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE--
                                     ENG DEV.
   097   0604742A                   CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION               4,394                            4,394
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
   098   0604746A                   AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT             11,084                           11,084
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   099   0604760A                   DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE             10,027                           10,027
                                     SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG DEV.
   100   0604780A                   COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL               42,430                           42,430
                                     TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
   101   0604798A                   BRIGADE ANALYSIS,                   105,279                          105,279
                                     INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION.
   102   0604802A                   WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG           15,006                           15,006
                                     DEV.
   103   0604804A                   LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER               24,581                           24,581
                                     EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
   104   0604805A                   COMMAND, CONTROL,                     4,433                            4,433
                                     COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
                                     ENG DEV.
   105   0604807A                   MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL             30,397                           30,397
                                     BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
                                     EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
   106   0604808A                   LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER--           57,705                           57,705
                                     ENG DEV.
   108   0604818A                   ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND &              29,683                           29,683
                                     CONTROL HARDWARE &
                                     SOFTWARE.
   109   0604820A                   RADAR DEVELOPMENT..........           5,224                            5,224
   111   0604823A                   FIREFINDER.................          37,492                           37,492
   112   0604827A                   SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR              6,157                            6,157
                                     DEM/VAL.
   113   0604854A                   ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD.....           1,912                            1,912
   116   0605013A                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               69,761                           69,761
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   117   0605018A                   INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND            138,465                          138,465
                                     PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
   118   0605028A                   ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE                92,353                           92,353
                                     VEHICLE (AMPV).
   119   0605030A                   JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK                8,440                            8,440
                                     CENTER (JTNC).
   120   0605031A                   JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK               17,999                           17,999
                                     (JTN).
   121   0605035A                   COMMON INFRARED                     145,409                          145,409
                                     COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
   122   0605350A                   WIN-T INCREMENT 3--FULL             113,210                          113,210
                                     NETWORKING.
   123   0605380A                   AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO              6,882                            6,882
                                     SYSTEM (JTRS).
   124   0605450A                   JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE          83,838                           83,838
                                     (JAGM).
   125   0605456A                   PAC-3/MSE MISSILE..........          35,009                           35,009
   126   0605457A                   ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND             142,584                          142,584
                                     MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
   127   0605625A                   MANNED GROUND VEHICLE......          49,160                           49,160
   128   0605626A                   AERIAL COMMON SENSOR.......          17,748                           17,748
   129   0605766A                   NATIONAL CAPABILITIES                15,212                           15,212
                                     INTEGRATION (MIP).
   130   0605812A                   JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL                 45,718                           45,718
                                     VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
                                     AND MANUFACTURING
                                     DEVELOPMENT PH.
   131   0605830A                   AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT              10,041                           10,041
                                     EQUIPMENT.
   132   0210609A                   PALADIN INTEGRATED                   83,300                           83,300
                                     MANAGEMENT (PIM).
   133   0303032A                   TROJAN--RH12...............             983                              983
   134   0304270A                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE                    8,961                            8,961
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL SYSTEM                1,719,374           7,264        1,726,638
                                       DEVELOPMENT &
                                       DEMONSTRATION.
         .........................
         .........................  RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   135   0604256A                   THREAT SIMULATOR                     18,062                           18,062
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   136   0604258A                   TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.          10,040                           10,040
   137   0604759A                   MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.......          60,317                           60,317
   138   0605103A                   RAND ARROYO CENTER.........          20,612                           20,612
   139   0605301A                   ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL.......         176,041                          176,041
   140   0605326A                   CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION             19,439                           19,439
                                     PROGRAM.
   142   0605601A                   ARMY TEST RANGES AND                275,025                          275,025
                                     FACILITIES.
   143   0605602A                   ARMY TECHNICAL TEST                  45,596                           45,596
                                     INSTRUMENTATION AND
                                     TARGETS.
   144   0605604A                   SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY              33,295                           33,295
                                     ANALYSIS.
   145   0605606A                   AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION.....           4,700                            4,700
   146   0605702A                   METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO             6,413                            6,413
                                     RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
   147   0605706A                   MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS..          20,746                           20,746
   148   0605709A                   EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN               7,015                            7,015
                                     ITEMS.
   149   0605712A                   SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL               49,221                           49,221
                                     TESTING.
   150   0605716A                   ARMY EVALUATION CENTER.....          55,039                           55,039
   151   0605718A                   ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD             1,125                            1,125
                                     COLLABORATION & INTEG.
   152   0605801A                   PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES.....          64,169                           64,169
   153   0605803A                   TECHNICAL INFORMATION                32,319                           32,319
                                     ACTIVITIES.
   154   0605805A                   MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION,           49,052                           49,052
                                     EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
   155   0605857A                   ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                 2,612                            2,612
                                     TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
   156   0605898A                   MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D.........          49,592                           49,592
         .........................     SUBTOTAL RDT&E                 1,000,430                        1,000,430
                                       MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
         .........................
         .........................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                     DEVELOPMENT
   158   0603778A                   MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT             17,112                           17,112
                                     PROGRAM.
   159   0607141A                   LOGISTICS AUTOMATION.......           3,654                            3,654
   160   0607664A                   BIOMETRIC ENABLING                    1,332                            1,332
                                     CAPABILITY (BEC).
   161   0607865A                   PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT         152,991                          152,991
   162   0102419A                   AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT               54,076         -25,000           29,076
                                     OFFICE.
         .........................      Unobligated balances...                        [-25,000]
   163   0203726A                   ADV FIELD ARTILLERY                  22,374                           22,374
                                     TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM.
   164   0203728A                   JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP                 24,371                           24,371
                                     OPERATION COORDINATION
                                     SYSTEM (JADOCS).
   165   0203735A                   COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT          295,177          26,000          321,177
                                     PROGRAMS.
         .........................      Stryker ECP risk                                [26,000]
                                        mitigation.
   166   0203740A                   MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM....          45,092                           45,092
   167   0203744A                   AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/             264,887                          264,887
                                     PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
                                     PROGRAMS.
   168   0203752A                   AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT               381                              381
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   169   0203758A                   DIGITIZATION...............          10,912                           10,912
   170   0203801A                   MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT           5,115                            5,115
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   171   0203802A                   OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT                49,848          -5,000           44,848
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
         .........................      Contract delay for                              [-5,000]
                                        ATACMS.
   172   0203808A                   TRACTOR CARD...............          22,691                           22,691
   173   0205402A                   INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE--             4,364                            4,364
                                     OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV.
   174   0205410A                   MATERIALS HANDLING                      834                              834
                                     EQUIPMENT.
   175   0205412A                   ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                   280                              280
                                     TECHNOLOGY--OPERATIONAL
                                     SYSTEM DEV.
   176   0205456A                   LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE           78,758                           78,758
                                     DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM.
   177   0205778A                   GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH               45,377                           45,377
                                     ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
   178   0208053A                   JOINT TACTICAL GROUND                10,209                           10,209
                                     SYSTEM.
   181   0303028A                   SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE            12,525                           12,525
                                     ACTIVITIES.
   182   0303140A                   INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  14,175                           14,175
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
   183   0303141A                   GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT                 4,527                            4,527
                                     SYSTEM.
   184   0303142A                   SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT            11,011                           11,011
                                     (SPACE).
   185   0303150A                   WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND             2,151                            2,151
                                     CONTROL SYSTEM.
   187   0305204A                   TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL             22,870                           22,870
                                     VEHICLES.
   188   0305208A                   DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           20,155                           20,155
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   189   0305219A                   MQ-1C GRAY EAGLE UAS.......          46,472                           46,472
   191   0305233A                   RQ-7 UAV...................          16,389                           16,389
   192   0307665A                   BIOMETRICS ENABLED                    1,974                            1,974
                                     INTELLIGENCE.
   193   0310349A                   WIN-T INCREMENT 2--INITIAL            3,249                            3,249
                                     NETWORKING.
   194   0708045A                   END ITEM INDUSTRIAL                  76,225                           76,225
                                     PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
  194A   9999999999                 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........           4,802                            4,802
         .........................     SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL           1,346,360          -4,000        1,342,360
                                       SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................
         .........................       TOTAL RESEARCH,              6,593,898         -13,896        6,580,002
                                         DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                         EVAL, ARMY.
         .........................
         .........................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
                                     & EVAL, NAVY
         .........................  BASIC RESEARCH
   001   0601103N                   UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                 113,908           5,000          118,908
                                     INITIATIVES.
         .........................      DURIP program increase.                          [5,000]
   002   0601152N                   IN-HOUSE LABORATORY                  18,734                           18,734
                                     INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
   003   0601153N                   DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES..         443,697                          443,697
         .........................     SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.         576,339           5,000          581,339
         .........................
         .........................  APPLIED RESEARCH
   004   0602114N                   POWER PROJECTION APPLIED             95,753                           95,753
                                     RESEARCH.
   005   0602123N                   FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED            139,496                          139,496
                                     RESEARCH.
   006   0602131M                   MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE           45,831                           45,831
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   007   0602235N                   COMMON PICTURE APPLIED               43,541                           43,541
                                     RESEARCH.
   008   0602236N                   WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT               46,923                           46,923
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
   009   0602271N                   ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS             107,872                          107,872
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
   010   0602435N                   OCEAN WARFIGHTING                    45,388          20,000           65,388
                                     ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
                                     RESEARCH.
         .........................      Service Life extension                          [20,000]
                                        for the AGOR ships.
   011   0602651M                   JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS              5,887                            5,887
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
   012   0602747N                   UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED             86,880                           86,880
                                     RESEARCH.
   013   0602750N                   FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES           170,786                          170,786
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
   014   0602782N                   MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY               32,526                           32,526
                                     WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL APPLIED                 820,883          20,000          840,883
                                       RESEARCH.
         .........................
         .........................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT
   015   0603114N                   POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED            37,734                           37,734
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   016   0603123N                   FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED            25,831                           25,831
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   017   0603271N                   ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS              64,623                           64,623
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   018   0603640M                   USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY            128,397                          128,397
                                     DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
   019   0603651M                   JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS             11,506                           11,506
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   020   0603673N                   FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES           256,144                          256,144
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   021   0603729N                   WARFIGHTER PROTECTION                 4,838                            4,838
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   022   0603747N                   UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED             9,985                            9,985
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   023   0603758N                   NAVY WARFIGHTING                     53,956                           53,956
                                     EXPERIMENTS AND
                                     DEMONSTRATIONS.
   024   0603782N                   MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY                2,000                            2,000
                                     WARFARE ADVANCED
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                595,014                          595,014
                                       TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................
         .........................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   025   0603207N                   AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL                   40,429                           40,429
                                     APPLICATIONS.
   026   0603216N                   AVIATION SURVIVABILITY.....           4,325                            4,325
   027   0603237N                   DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND              2,991                            2,991
                                     AND CONTROL.
   028   0603251N                   AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS...........          12,651                           12,651
   029   0603254N                   ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT....           7,782                            7,782
   030   0603261N                   TACTICAL AIRBORNE                     5,275                            5,275
                                     RECONNAISSANCE.
   031   0603382N                   ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS               1,646                            1,646
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   032   0603502N                   SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER           100,349                          100,349
                                     MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
   033   0603506N                   SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO                 52,781                           52,781
                                     DEFENSE.
   034   0603512N                   CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT           5,959                            5,959
   035   0603525N                   PILOT FISH.................         148,865                          148,865
   036   0603527N                   RETRACT LARCH..............          25,365                           25,365
   037   0603536N                   RETRACT JUNIPER............          80,477                           80,477
   038   0603542N                   RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL.......             669                              669
   039   0603553N                   SURFACE ASW................           1,060                            1,060
   040   0603561N                   ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM            70,551                           70,551
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   041   0603562N                   SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE            8,044                            8,044
                                     SYSTEMS.
   042   0603563N                   SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED                17,864                           17,864
                                     DESIGN.
   043   0603564N                   SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN &            23,716                           23,716
                                     FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
   044   0603570N                   ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER              499,961                          499,961
                                     SYSTEMS.
   045   0603573N                   ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY           21,026                           21,026
                                     SYSTEMS.
   046   0603576N                   CHALK EAGLE................         542,700                          542,700
   047   0603581N                   LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS).          88,734                           88,734
   048   0603582N                   COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION..          20,881                           20,881
   049   0603595N                   OHIO REPLACEMENT...........         849,277                          849,277
   050   0603596N                   LCS MISSION MODULES........         196,948                          196,948
   051   0603597N                   AUTOMATED TEST AND RE-TEST            8,115                            8,115
                                     (ATRT).
   052   0603609N                   CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS.....           7,603                            7,603
   053   0603611M                   MARINE CORPS ASSAULT                105,749          85,100          190,849
                                     VEHICLES.
         .........................      Acceleration of the ACV                         [85,100]
                                        Increment 1.1 Program.
   054   0603635M                   MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/           1,342                            1,342
                                     SUPPORT SYSTEM.
   055   0603654N                   JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE              21,399                           21,399
                                     ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
   056   0603658N                   COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT.....          43,578                           43,578
   057   0603713N                   OCEAN ENGINEERING                     7,764                            7,764
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   058   0603721N                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION...          13,200                           13,200
   059   0603724N                   NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM........          69,415                           69,415
   060   0603725N                   FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT.....           2,588                            2,588
   061   0603734N                   CHALK CORAL................         176,301                          176,301
   062   0603739N                   NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY.           3,873                            3,873
   063   0603746N                   RETRACT MAPLE..............         376,028                          376,028
   064   0603748N                   LINK PLUMERIA..............         272,096                          272,096
   065   0603751N                   RETRACT ELM................          42,233                           42,233
   066   0603764N                   LINK EVERGREEN.............          46,504                           46,504
   067   0603787N                   SPECIAL PROCESSES..........          25,109                           25,109
   068   0603790N                   NATO RESEARCH AND                     9,659                            9,659
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   069   0603795N                   LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY.....             318                              318
   070   0603851M                   JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS             40,912                           40,912
                                     TESTING.
   071   0603860N                   JOINT PRECISION APPROACH             54,896         -27,000           27,896
                                     AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
                                     VAL.
         .........................      Program delay..........                        [-27,000]
   073   0603925N                   DIRECTED ENERGY AND                  58,696                           58,696
                                     ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
   074   0604112N                   GERALD R. FORD CLASS                 43,613                           43,613
                                     NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
                                     (CVN 78--80).
   075   0604122N                   REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM            21,110                           21,110
                                     (RMS).
   076   0604272N                   TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL              5,657                            5,657
                                     INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
                                     (TADIRCM).
   077   0604279N                   ASE SELF-PROTECTION                   8,033                            8,033
                                     OPTIMIZATION.
   078   0604454N                   LX (R).....................          36,859                           36,859
   079   0604653N                   JOINT COUNTER RADIO                  15,227                           15,227
                                     CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC
                                     WARFARE (JCREW).
   081   0604707N                   SPACE AND ELECTRONIC                 22,393                           22,393
                                     WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/
                                     ENGINEERING SUPPORT.
   082   0604786N                   OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE              202,939                          202,939
                                     WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT.
   083   0605812M                   JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL                 11,450                           11,450
                                     VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
                                     AND MANUFACTURING
                                     DEVELOPMENT PH.
   084   0303354N                   ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT--             6,495                            6,495
                                     MIP.
   085   0304270N                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE                      332                              332
                                     DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL ADVANCED              4,591,812          58,100        4,649,912
                                       COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                       PROTOTYPES.
         .........................
         .........................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION
   086   0603208N                   TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT...          25,153                           25,153
   087   0604212N                   OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT.....          46,154                           46,154
   088   0604214N                   AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV....          25,372                           25,372
   089   0604215N                   STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT......          53,712                           53,712
   090   0604216N                   MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER             11,434                           11,434
                                     UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
   091   0604218N                   AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT                   2,164                            2,164
                                     ENGINEERING.
   092   0604221N                   P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM..           1,710                            1,710
   093   0604230N                   WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM.....           9,094                            9,094
   094   0604231N                   TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM....          70,248                           70,248
   095   0604234N                   ADVANCED HAWKEYE...........         193,200                          193,200
   096   0604245N                   H-1 UPGRADES...............          44,115                           44,115
   097   0604261N                   ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS....          23,227                           23,227
   098   0604262N                   V-22A......................          61,249                           61,249
   099   0604264N                   AIR CREW SYSTEMS                     15,014                           15,014
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   100   0604269N                   EA-18......................          18,730                           18,730
   101   0604270N                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   28,742                           28,742
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   102   0604273N                   EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT.         388,086                          388,086
   103   0604274N                   NEXT GENERATION JAMMER              246,856                          246,856
                                     (NGJ).
   104   0604280N                   JOINT TACTICAL RADIO                  7,106                            7,106
                                     SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
   105   0604307N                   SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT            189,112                          189,112
                                     SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
   106   0604311N                   LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS                    376                              376
                                     INTEGRATION.
   107   0604329N                   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)..          71,849                           71,849
   108   0604366N                   STANDARD MISSILE                     53,198                           53,198
                                     IMPROVEMENTS.
   109   0604373N                   AIRBORNE MCM...............          38,941                           38,941
   110   0604376M                   MARINE AIR GROUND TASK                7,832                            7,832
                                     FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC
                                     WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION.
   111   0604378N                   NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE                15,263                           15,263
                                     CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
                                     SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
   112   0604404N                   UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED           403,017        -203,000          200,017
                                     AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND
                                     STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM.
         .........................      Program delay..........                       [-203,000]
   113   0604501N                   ADVANCED ABOVE WATER                 20,409                           20,409
                                     SENSORS.
   114   0604503N                   SSN-688 AND TRIDENT                  71,565                           71,565
                                     MODERNIZATION.
   115   0604504N                   AIR CONTROL................          29,037                           29,037
   116   0604512N                   SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS.         122,083                          122,083
   118   0604522N                   ADVANCED MISSILE DEFENSE            144,706                          144,706
                                     RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
   119   0604558N                   NEW DESIGN SSN.............          72,695                           72,695
   120   0604562N                   SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE           38,985                           38,985
                                     SYSTEM.
   121   0604567N                   SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE           48,470                           48,470
                                     FIRE T&E.
   122   0604574N                   NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER                3,935                            3,935
                                     RESOURCES.
   123   0604580N                   VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE             132,602                          132,602
                                     (VPM).
   124   0604601N                   MINE DEVELOPMENT...........          19,067                           19,067
   125   0604610N                   LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO                  25,280                           25,280
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   126   0604654N                   JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE               8,985                            8,985
                                     ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
   127   0604703N                   PERSONNEL, TRAINING,                  7,669                            7,669
                                     SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
                                     FACTORS.
   128   0604727N                   JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON                 4,400                            4,400
                                     SYSTEMS.
   129   0604755N                   SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT &          56,889                           56,889
                                     CONTROL).
   130   0604756N                   SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE:           96,937                           96,937
                                     HARD KILL).
   131   0604757N                   SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE:          134,564                          134,564
                                     SOFT KILL/EW).
   132   0604761N                   INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING...             200                              200
   133   0604771N                   MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT........           8,287                            8,287
   134   0604777N                   NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM.......          29,504                           29,504
   135   0604800M                   JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)--        513,021                          513,021
                                     EMD.
   136   0604800N                   JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)--        516,456                          516,456
                                     EMD.
   137   0605013M                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY                2,887                            2,887
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   138   0605013N                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               66,317                           66,317
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   139   0605212N                   CH-53K RDTE................         573,187                          573,187
   140   0605220N                   SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR              67,815                           67,815
                                     (SSC).
   141   0605450N                   JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE           6,300                            6,300
                                     (JAGM).
   142   0605500N                   MULTI-MISSION MARITIME              308,037          15,000          323,037
                                     AIRCRAFT (MMA).
         .........................      Wideband Communication                          [15,000]
                                        Development.
   143   0204202N                   DDG-1000...................         202,522                          202,522
   144   0304231N                   TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM--             1,011                            1,011
                                     MIP.
   145   0304785N                   TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC                 10,357                           10,357
                                     SYSTEMS.
   146   0305124N                   SPECIAL APPLICATIONS                 23,975                           23,975
                                     PROGRAM.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL SYSTEM                5,419,108        -188,000        5,231,108
                                       DEVELOPMENT &
                                       DEMONSTRATION.
         .........................
         .........................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   147   0604256N                   THREAT SIMULATOR                     45,272                           45,272
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   148   0604258N                   TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.          79,718                           79,718
   149   0604759N                   MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.......         123,993                          123,993
   150   0605126N                   JOINT THEATER AIR AND                 4,960                            4,960
                                     MISSILE DEFENSE
                                     ORGANIZATION.
   151   0605152N                   STUDIES AND ANALYSIS                  8,296                            8,296
                                     SUPPORT--NAVY.
   152   0605154N                   CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES..          45,752                           45,752
   154   0605804N                   TECHNICAL INFORMATION                   876                              876
                                     SERVICES.
   155   0605853N                   MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL &              72,070                           72,070
                                     INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
   156   0605856N                   STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT           3,237                            3,237
   157   0605861N                   RDT&E SCIENCE AND                    73,033                           73,033
                                     TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
   158   0605863N                   RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT             138,304                          138,304
                                     SUPPORT.
   159   0605864N                   TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT         336,286                          336,286
   160   0605865N                   OPERATIONAL TEST AND                 16,658                           16,658
                                     EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
   161   0605866N                   NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC             2,505                            2,505
                                     WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
   162   0605867N                   SEW SURVEILLANCE/                     8,325                            8,325
                                     RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
   163   0605873M                   MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE            17,866                           17,866
                                     SUPPORT.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT              977,151                          977,151
                                       SUPPORT.
         .........................
         .........................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                     DEVELOPMENT
   168   0604402N                   UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE          35,949                           35,949
                                     (UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT.
   169   0604766M                   MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS..             215                              215
   170   0605525N                   CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY              8,873                            8,873
                                     (COD) FOLLOW ON.
   172   0101221N                   STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS              96,943                           96,943
                                     SYSTEM SUPPORT.
   173   0101224N                   SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY             30,057                           30,057
                                     PROGRAM.
   174   0101226N                   SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE            4,509                            4,509
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   175   0101402N                   NAVY STRATEGIC                       13,676                           13,676
                                     COMMUNICATIONS.
   176   0203761N                   RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION          12,480                           12,480
                                     (RTT).
   177   0204136N                   F/A-18 SQUADRONS...........          76,216                           76,216
   179   0204163N                   FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS             27,281                           27,281
                                     (TACTICAL).
   180   0204228N                   SURFACE SUPPORT............           2,878                            2,878
   181   0204229N                   TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK                32,385                           32,385
                                     MISSION PLANNING CENTER
                                     (TMPC).
   182   0204311N                   INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE              39,371                           39,371
                                     SYSTEM.
   183   0204413N                   AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT           4,609                            4,609
                                     UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
   184   0204460M                   GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED             99,106         -10,000           89,106
                                     RADAR (G/ATOR).
         .........................      Unjustified cost growth                        [-10,000]
   185   0204571N                   CONSOLIDATED TRAINING                39,922                           39,922
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
   186   0204574N                   CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT.           1,157                            1,157
   187   0204575N                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW)              22,067                           22,067
                                     READINESS SUPPORT.
   188   0205601N                   HARM IMPROVEMENT...........          17,420                           17,420
   189   0205604N                   TACTICAL DATA LINKS........         151,208                          151,208
   190   0205620N                   SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM            26,366                           26,366
                                     INTEGRATION.
   191   0205632N                   MK-48 ADCAP................          25,952                           25,952
   192   0205633N                   AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS......         106,936                          106,936
   194   0205675N                   OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER           104,023                          104,023
                                     SYSTEMS.
   195   0206313M                   MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS          77,398                           77,398
                                     SYSTEMS.
   196   0206335M                   COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND          32,495                           32,495
                                     CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S).
   197   0206623M                   MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/         156,626                          156,626
                                     SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS.
   198   0206624M                   MARINE CORPS COMBAT                  20,999                           20,999
                                     SERVICES SUPPORT.
   199   0206625M                   USMC INTELLIGENCE/                   14,179                           14,179
                                     ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS
                                     (MIP).
   200   0207161N                   TACTICAL AIM MISSILES......          47,258                           47,258
   201   0207163N                   ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-           10,210                           10,210
                                     TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
   206   0303109N                   SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS             41,829                           41,829
                                     (SPACE).
   207   0303138N                   CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK          22,780                           22,780
                                     ENTERPRISE SERVICES
                                     (CANES).
   208   0303140N                   INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  23,053                           23,053
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
   209   0303150M                   WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND               296                              296
                                     CONTROL SYSTEM.
   212   0305160N                   NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND                 359                              359
                                     OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
                                     (METOC).
   213   0305192N                   MILITARY INTELLIGENCE                 6,166                            6,166
                                     PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
   214   0305204N                   TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL              8,505                            8,505
                                     VEHICLES.
   216   0305208M                   DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           11,613                           11,613
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   217   0305208N                   DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           18,146                           18,146
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   218   0305220N                   RQ-4 UAV...................         498,003          32,400          530,403
         .........................      Triton Sensor                                   [32,400]
                                        Development
                                        Acceleration.
   219   0305231N                   MQ-8 UAV...................          47,294                           47,294
   220   0305232M                   RQ-11 UAV..................             718                              718
   221   0305233N                   RQ-7 UAV...................             851                              851
   222   0305234N                   SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL              4,813                            4,813
                                     UAS (STUASL0).
   223   0305239M                   RQ-21A.....................           8,192                            8,192
   224   0305241N                   MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR            22,559                           22,559
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   225   0305242M                   UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS               2,000                            2,000
                                     (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
   226   0308601N                   MODELING AND SIMULATION               4,719                            4,719
                                     SUPPORT.
   227   0702207N                   DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF).          21,168                           21,168
   228   0708011N                   INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS....          37,169                           37,169
   229   0708730N                   MARITIME TECHNOLOGY                   4,347                            4,347
                                     (MARITECH).
  229A   9999999999                 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........       1,162,684                        1,162,684
         .........................     SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL           3,286,028          22,400        3,308,428
                                       SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................
         .........................       TOTAL RESEARCH,             16,266,335         -82,500       16,183,835
                                         DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                         EVAL, NAVY.
         .........................
         .........................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
                                     & EVAL, AF
         .........................  BASIC RESEARCH
   001   0601102F                   DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES..         314,482                          314,482
   002   0601103F                   UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                 127,079                          127,079
                                     INITIATIVES.
   003   0601108F                   HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH           12,929                           12,929
                                     INITIATIVES.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.         454,490                          454,490
         .........................
         .........................  APPLIED RESEARCH
   004   0602102F                   MATERIALS..................         105,680                          105,680
   005   0602201F                   AEROSPACE VEHICLE                   105,747                          105,747
                                     TECHNOLOGIES.
   006   0602202F                   HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED          81,957                           81,957
                                     RESEARCH.
   007   0602203F                   AEROSPACE PROPULSION.......         172,550         197,000          369,550
         .........................      RD-180 replacement.....                        [220,000]
         .........................      Reduction for liquid                           [-23,000]
                                        engine combustion
                                        technologies and
                                        advanced liquid engine
                                        technologies.
   008   0602204F                   AEROSPACE SENSORS..........         118,343                          118,343
   009   0602601F                   SPACE TECHNOLOGY...........          98,229                           98,229
   010   0602602F                   CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS.....          87,387                           87,387
   011   0602605F                   DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.         125,955                          125,955
   012   0602788F                   DOMINANT INFORMATION                147,789                          147,789
                                     SCIENCES AND METHODS.
   013   0602890F                   HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH.          37,496                           37,496
         .........................     SUBTOTAL APPLIED               1,081,133         197,000        1,278,133
                                       RESEARCH.
         .........................
         .........................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT
   014   0603112F                   ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR               32,177          10,000           42,177
                                     WEAPON SYSTEMS.
         .........................      Metals Affordability                            [10,000]
                                        Initiative.
   015   0603199F                   SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND              15,800                           15,800
                                     TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
   016   0603203F                   ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS.          34,420                           34,420
   017   0603211F                   AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/            91,062                           91,062
                                     DEMO.
   018   0603216F                   AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND            124,236                          124,236
                                     POWER TECHNOLOGY.
   019   0603270F                   ELECTRONIC COMBAT                    47,602                           47,602
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   020   0603401F                   ADVANCED SPACECRAFT                  69,026                           69,026
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   021   0603444F                   MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE              14,031                           14,031
                                     SYSTEM (MSSS).
   022   0603456F                   HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS                  21,788                           21,788
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   023   0603601F                   CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS                 42,046                           42,046
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   024   0603605F                   ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY          23,542          10,000           33,542
         .........................      Program increase.......                         [10,000]
   025   0603680F                   MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY             42,772                           42,772
                                     PROGRAM.
   026   0603788F                   BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE                35,315                           35,315
                                     DEVELOPMENT AND
                                     DEMONSTRATION.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                593,817          20,000          613,817
                                       TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................
         .........................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   027   0603260F                   INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED                 5,408                            5,408
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   031   0603438F                   SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY...           6,075                            6,075
   032   0603742F                   COMBAT IDENTIFICATION                10,980                           10,980
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   033   0603790F                   NATO RESEARCH AND                     2,392                            2,392
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   034   0603791F                   INTERNATIONAL SPACE                     833                              833
                                     COOPERATIVE R&D.
   035   0603830F                   SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE           32,313                           32,313
                                     PROGRAM.
   037   0603851F                   INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC           30,885                           30,885
                                     MISSILE--DEM/VAL.
   039   0603859F                   POLLUTION PREVENTION--DEM/            1,798                            1,798
                                     VAL.
   040   0604015F                   LONG RANGE STRIKE..........         913,728                          913,728
   042   0604317F                   TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER........           2,669                            2,669
   045   0604422F                   WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON...          39,901         -34,900            5,001
         .........................      Realigned to DMSP-20                           [-34,900]
                                        launch.
   049   0604800F                   F-35--EMD..................           4,976                            4,976
   050   0604857F                   OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE                             30,000           30,000
                                     SPACE.
         .........................      ORS Office and ORS-5                            [30,000]
                                        Competition Launch.
   051   0604858F                   TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM....          59,004                           59,004
   054   0207110F                   NEXT GENERATION AIR                  15,722                           15,722
                                     DOMINANCE.
   055   0207455F                   THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-              88,825                           88,825
                                     RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
   056   0305164F                   NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING          156,659                          156,659
                                     SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT)
                                     (SPACE).
         .........................     SUBTOTAL ADVANCED              1,372,168          -4,900        1,367,268
                                       COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                       PROTOTYPES.
         .........................
         .........................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION
   059   0604233F                   SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE            13,324                           13,324
                                     FLIGHT TRAINING.
   060   0604270F                   ELECTRONIC WARFARE                    1,965                            1,965
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   061   0604281F                   TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS               39,110                           39,110
                                     ENTERPRISE.
   062   0604287F                   PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT           3,926                            3,926
   063   0604329F                   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)--          68,759                           68,759
                                     EMD.
   064   0604421F                   COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS.......          23,746                           23,746
   065   0604425F                   SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS             9,462          10,000           19,462
                                     SYSTEMS.
         .........................      Program increase.......                         [10,000]
   066   0604426F                   SPACE FENCE................         214,131                          214,131
   067   0604429F                   AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK.          30,687                           30,687
   068   0604441F                   SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM         319,501                          319,501
                                     (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
   069   0604602F                   ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE                    31,112                           31,112
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   070   0604604F                   SUBMUNITIONS...............           2,543                            2,543
   071   0604617F                   AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT.......          46,340                           46,340
   072   0604706F                   LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS.......           8,854                            8,854
   073   0604735F                   COMBAT TRAINING RANGES.....          10,129                           10,129
   075   0604800F                   F-35--EMD..................         563,037                          563,037
   078   0604932F                   LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON.           4,938                            4,938
   079   0604933F                   ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION....          59,826                           59,826
   080   0605030F                   JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK                   78                               78
                                     CENTER (JTNC).
   081   0605213F                   F-22 MODERNIZATION                  173,647                          173,647
                                     INCREMENT 3.2B.
   082   0605214F                   GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE            5,332                            5,332
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   083   0605221F                   KC-46......................         776,937                          776,937
   084   0605223F                   ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING....           8,201                            8,201
   086   0605278F                   HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E......           7,497                            7,497
   087   0605431F                   ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM              314,378                          314,378
                                     (SPACE).
   088   0605432F                   POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE)....         103,552                          103,552
   089   0605433F                   WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM               31,425                           31,425
                                     (SPACE).
   090   0605458F                   AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2          85,938                           85,938
                                     RDT&E.
   091   0605931F                   B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT             98,768                           98,768
                                     SYSTEM.
   092   0101125F                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS                     198,357                          198,357
                                     MODERNIZATION.
   094   0207701F                   FULL COMBAT MISSION                   8,831                            8,831
                                     TRAINING.
   095   0307581F                   NEXTGEN JSTARS.............          73,088                           73,088
         .........................     SUBTOTAL SYSTEM                3,337,419          10,000        3,347,419
                                       DEVELOPMENT &
                                       DEMONSTRATION.
         .........................
         .........................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   097   0604256F                   THREAT SIMULATOR                     24,418                           24,418
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   098   0604759F                   MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.......          47,232                           47,232
   099   0605101F                   RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE.....          30,443                           30,443
   101   0605712F                   INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST &           12,266                           12,266
                                     EVALUATION.
   102   0605807F                   TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT         689,509                          689,509
   103   0605860F                   ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH                34,364                           34,364
                                     PROGRAM (SPACE).
   104   0605864F                   SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP)...          21,161                           21,161
   105   0605976F                   FACILITIES RESTORATION AND           46,955                           46,955
                                     MODERNIZATION--TEST AND
                                     EVALUATION SUPPORT.
   106   0605978F                   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT--             32,965                           32,965
                                     TEST AND EVALUATION
                                     SUPPORT.
   107   0606017F                   REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND            13,850                           13,850
                                     MATURATION.
   108   0606116F                   SPACE TEST AND TRAINING              19,512                           19,512
                                     RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
   110   0606392F                   SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER            181,727                          181,727
                                     (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
   111   0308602F                   ENTEPRISE INFORMATION                 4,938                            4,938
                                     SERVICES (EIS).
   112   0702806F                   ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT           18,644                           18,644
                                     SUPPORT.
   113   0804731F                   GENERAL SKILL TRAINING.....           1,425                            1,425
   114   1001004F                   INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES...           3,790                            3,790
  114A   XXXXXXXF                   EJECTION SEAT RELIABILITY                             3,500            3,500
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
         .........................      Initial Aircraft                                 [3,500]
                                        Qualification.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT            1,183,199           3,500        1,186,699
                                       SUPPORT.
         .........................
         .........................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                     DEVELOPMENT
   115   0603423F                   GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM           299,760                          299,760
                                     III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
                                     SEGMENT.
   116   0604445F                   WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE.....                           2,000            2,000
         .........................      Implementation of the                            [2,000]
                                        Secretary's Cruise
                                        Missile Defense Program.
   118   0604618F                   JOINT DIRECT ATTACK                   2,469                            2,469
                                     MUNITION.
   119   0605018F                   AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND          90,218                           90,218
                                     PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
   120   0605024F                   ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY               34,815                           34,815
                                     EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
   122   0101113F                   B-52 SQUADRONS.............          55,457                           55,457
   123   0101122F                   AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE             450                              450
                                     (ALCM).
   124   0101126F                   B-1B SQUADRONS.............           5,353                            5,353
   125   0101127F                   B-2 SQUADRONS..............         131,580         -29,400          102,180
         .........................      Flexible Strike                                [-29,400]
                                        execution delay.
   126   0101213F                   MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS........         139,109                          139,109
   127   0101313F                   STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM--          35,603                           35,603
                                     USSTRATCOM.
   128   0101314F                   NIGHT FIST--USSTRATCOM.....              32                               32
   130   0102326F                   REGION/SECTOR OPERATION               1,522                            1,522
                                     CONTROL CENTER
                                     MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
   131   0105921F                   SERVICE SUPPORT TO                    3,134                            3,134
                                     STRATCOM--SPACE ACTIVITIES.
   133   0205219F                   MQ-9 UAV...................         170,396                          170,396
   136   0207133F                   F-16 SQUADRONS.............         133,105                          133,105
   137   0207134F                   F-15E SQUADRONS............         261,969                          261,969
   138   0207136F                   MANNED DESTRUCTIVE                   14,831                           14,831
                                     SUPPRESSION.
   139   0207138F                   F-22A SQUADRONS............         156,962                          156,962
   140   0207142F                   F-35 SQUADRONS.............          43,666                           43,666
   141   0207161F                   TACTICAL AIM MISSILES......          29,739                           29,739
   142   0207163F                   ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-           82,195                           82,195
                                     TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
   144   0207171F                   F-15 EPAWSS................          68,944         -15,500           53,444
         .........................      EPAWSS contract delays.                        [-15,500]
   145   0207224F                   COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY.           5,095                            5,095
   146   0207227F                   COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE..             883                              883
   147   0207247F                   AF TENCAP..................           5,812          10,000           15,812
         .........................      Program increase.......                         [10,000]
   148   0207249F                   PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS              1,081                            1,081
                                     PROCUREMENT.
   149   0207253F                   COMPASS CALL...............          14,411                           14,411
   150   0207268F                   AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT           109,664                          109,664
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   151   0207325F                   JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE                 15,897                           15,897
                                     STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
   152   0207410F                   AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS               41,066                           41,066
                                     CENTER (AOC).
   153   0207412F                   CONTROL AND REPORTING                   552                              552
                                     CENTER (CRC).
   154   0207417F                   AIRBORNE WARNING AND                180,804                          180,804
                                     CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
   155   0207418F                   TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL             3,754                            3,754
                                     SYSTEMS.
   157   0207431F                   COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE               7,891                            7,891
                                     SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
   158   0207444F                   TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-           5,891                            5,891
                                     MOD.
   159   0207448F                   C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK...           1,782                            1,782
   161   0207452F                   DCAPES.....................             821                              821
   163   0207590F                   SEEK EAGLE.................          23,844                           23,844
   164   0207601F                   USAF MODELING AND                    16,723                           16,723
                                     SIMULATION.
   165   0207605F                   WARGAMING AND SIMULATION              5,956                            5,956
                                     CENTERS.
   166   0207697F                   DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND              4,457                            4,457
                                     EXERCISES.
   167   0208006F                   MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS...          60,679                           60,679
   169   0208059F                   CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES...          67,057                           67,057
   170   0208087F                   AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE              13,355                           13,355
                                     OPERATIONS.
   171   0208088F                   AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE               5,576                            5,576
                                     OPERATIONS.
   179   0301400F                   SPACE SUPERIORITY                    12,218                           12,218
                                     INTELLIGENCE.
   180   0302015F                   E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE               28,778                           28,778
                                     OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
   181   0303131F                   MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY          81,035                           81,035
                                     COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
                                     (MEECN).
   182   0303140F                   INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  70,497                           70,497
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
   183   0303141F                   GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT                   692                              692
                                     SYSTEM.
   185   0303601F                   MILSATCOM TERMINALS........          55,208                           55,208
   187   0304260F                   AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE.         106,786                          106,786
   190   0305099F                   GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC                    4,157                            4,157
                                     MANAGEMENT (GATM).
   193   0305110F                   SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK            20,806                           20,806
                                     (SPACE).
   194   0305111F                   WEATHER SERVICE............          25,102                           25,102
   195   0305114F                   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL,                 23,516                           23,516
                                     APPROACH, AND LANDING
                                     SYSTEM (ATCALS).
   196   0305116F                   AERIAL TARGETS.............           8,639                            8,639
   199   0305128F                   SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE              498                              498
                                     ACTIVITIES.
   200   0305145F                   ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION          13,222                           13,222
   201   0305146F                   DEFENSE JOINT                           360                              360
                                     COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
                                     ACTIVITIES.
   206   0305173F                   SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND            3,674                            3,674
                                     EVALUATION CENTER.
   207   0305174F                   SPACE INNOVATION,                     2,480                            2,480
                                     INTEGRATION AND RAPID
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   208   0305179F                   INTEGRATED BROADCAST                  8,592                            8,592
                                     SERVICE (IBS).
   209   0305182F                   SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM               13,462                           13,462
                                     (SPACE).
   210   0305202F                   DRAGON U-2.................           5,511                            5,511
   212   0305206F                   AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE              28,113          10,000           38,113
                                     SYSTEMS.
         .........................      Per Air Force UFR......                         [10,000]
   213   0305207F                   MANNED RECONNAISSANCE                13,516                           13,516
                                     SYSTEMS.
   214   0305208F                   DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           27,265                           27,265
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   215   0305219F                   MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV........           1,378                            1,378
   216   0305220F                   RQ-4 UAV...................         244,514                          244,514
   217   0305221F                   NETWORK-CENTRIC                      11,096                           11,096
                                     COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
   218   0305236F                   COMMON DATA LINK (CDL).....          36,137                           36,137
   219   0305238F                   NATO AGS...................         232,851                          232,851
   220   0305240F                   SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE.          20,218                           20,218
   221   0305265F                   GPS III SPACE SEGMENT......         212,571                          212,571
   222   0305614F                   JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM.......          73,779                           73,779
   223   0305881F                   RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION....           4,102                            4,102
   225   0305913F                   NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM               20,468                           20,468
                                     (SPACE).
   226   0305940F                   SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS            11,596                           11,596
                                     OPERATIONS.
   227   0306250F                   CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY           4,938                            4,938
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   228   0308699F                   SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW).           1,212                            1,212
   230   0401119F                   C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF).          38,773                           38,773
   231   0401130F                   C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF).........          83,773                           83,773
   232   0401132F                   C-130J PROGRAM.............          26,715                           26,715
   233   0401134F                   LARGE AIRCRAFT IR                     5,172                            5,172
                                     COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
   234   0401219F                   KC-10S.....................           2,714                            2,714
   235   0401314F                   OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT          27,784                           27,784
   236   0401318F                   CV-22......................          38,719                           38,719
   237   0401319F                   PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT                11,006                           11,006
                                     REPLACEMENT (PAR).
   238   0408011F                   SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT              8,405                            8,405
                                     CONTROL.
   239   0702207F                   DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF).           1,407                            1,407
   241   0708610F                   LOGISTICS INFORMATION               109,685                          109,685
                                     TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
   242   0708611F                   SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT          16,209                           16,209
   243   0804743F                   OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING......             987                              987
   244   0808716F                   OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES.             126                              126
   245   0901202F                   JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY              2,603                            2,603
                                     AGENCY.
   246   0901218F                   CIVILIAN COMPENSATION                 1,589                            1,589
                                     PROGRAM.
   247   0901220F                   PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION...           5,026                            5,026
   248   0901226F                   AIR FORCE STUDIES AND                 1,394                            1,394
                                     ANALYSIS AGENCY.
   249   0901279F                   FACILITIES OPERATION--                3,798                            3,798
                                     ADMINISTRATIVE.
   250   0901538F                   FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT                107,314                          107,314
                                     INFORMATION SYSTEMS
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
  250A   9999999999                 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........      11,441,120         -77,200       11,363,920
         .........................      Classified program                              [25,000]
                                        increase.
         .........................      Classified program                            [-102,200]
                                        reduction.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL          15,717,666        -100,100       15,617,566
                                       SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................
         .........................       TOTAL RESEARCH,             23,739,892         125,500       23,865,392
                                         DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                         EVAL, AF.
         .........................
         .........................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
                                     & EVAL, DW
         .........................  BASIC RESEARCH
   001   0601000BR                  DTRA BASIC RESEARCH                  37,778                           37,778
                                     INITIATIVE.
   002   0601101E                   DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES..         312,146                          312,146
   003   0601110D8Z                 BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES.          44,564         -10,000           34,564
         .........................      National Security                              [-10,000]
                                        Science and Engineering
                                        Faculty Fellowship
                                        program.
   004   0601117E                   BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL            49,848                           49,848
                                     RESEARCH SCIENCE.
   005   0601120D8Z                 NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION           45,488          10,000           55,488
                                     PROGRAM.
         .........................      Pre-Kindergarten to                             [10,000]
                                        12th Grade STEM
                                        Programs.
   006   0601228D8Z                 HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES          24,412          10,000           34,412
                                     AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
                                     INSTITUTIONS.
         .........................      Historically Black                              [10,000]
                                        Colleges and
                                        Universities.
   007   0601384BP                  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL              48,261                           48,261
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.         562,497          10,000          572,497
         .........................
         .........................  APPLIED RESEARCH
   008   0602000D8Z                 JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY.          20,065                           20,065
   009   0602115E                   BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY......         112,242                          112,242
   011   0602234D8Z                 LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH          51,875                           51,875
                                     PROGRAM.
   012   0602251D8Z                 APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE             41,965                           41,965
                                     ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
                                     PRIORITIES.
   013   0602303E                   INFORMATION &                       334,407                          334,407
                                     COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
   015   0602383E                   BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE.          44,825                           44,825
   016   0602384BP                  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             226,317                          226,317
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM.
   018   0602668D8Z                 CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH....          15,000                           15,000
   020   0602702E                   TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY........         305,484                          305,484
   021   0602715E                   MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL            160,389                          160,389
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   022   0602716E                   ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY.....         179,203                          179,203
   023   0602718BR                  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION         151,737                          151,737
                                     DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES.
   024   0602751D8Z                 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING                  9,156                            9,156
                                     INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
                                     RESEARCH.
   025   1160401BB                  SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.          39,750                           39,750
         .........................     SUBTOTAL APPLIED               1,692,415                        1,692,415
                                       RESEARCH.
         .........................
         .........................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT
   026   0603000D8Z                 JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED             26,688                           26,688
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   027   0603121D8Z                 SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT           8,682                            8,682
   028   0603122D8Z                 COMBATING TERRORISM                  69,675          20,000           89,675
                                     TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
         .........................      Program emphasis for CT                         [20,000]
                                        and Irregular Warfare
                                        Programs.
   029   0603133D8Z                 FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING          30,000          -6,000           24,000
         .........................      Program decrease.......                         [-6,000]
   030   0603160BR                  COUNTERPROLIFERATION                283,694                          283,694
                                     INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATION
                                     PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
   032   0603176C                   ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND                 8,470                            8,470
                                     PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
   033   0603177C                   DISCRIMINATION SENSOR                45,110                           45,110
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   034   0603178C                   WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY.........          14,068          13,348           27,416
         .........................      MDA DE Ballistic                                [13,348]
                                        Missile Kill Capability
                                        Development.
   035   0603179C                   ADVANCED C4ISR.............          15,329                           15,329
   036   0603180C                   ADVANCED RESEARCH..........          16,584                           16,584
   037   0603225D8Z                 JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS              19,335                           19,335
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   038   0603264S                   AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR              2,544                            2,544
                                     THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)--
                                     THEATER CAPABILITY.
   039   0603274C                   SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA                 51,033                           51,033
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   040   0603286E                   ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS.         129,723                          129,723
   041   0603287E                   SPACE PROGRAMS AND                  179,883                          179,883
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   042   0603288D8Z                 ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS.......          12,000                           12,000
   043   0603289D8Z                 ADVANCED INNOVATIVE                  60,000         -10,000           50,000
                                     ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
         .........................      Program decrease.......                        [-10,000]
   044   0603294C                   COMMON KILL VEHICLE                  25,639                           25,639
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   045   0603384BP                  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             132,674                          132,674
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   046   0603618D8Z                 JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED            10,965                           10,965
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   047   0603648D8Z                 JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY         131,960         -10,000          121,960
                                     DEMONSTRATIONS.
         .........................      Program decrease.......                        [-10,000]
   052   0603680D8Z                 DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING           91,095                           91,095
                                     SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                                     PROGRAM.
   053   0603699D8Z                 EMERGING CAPABILITIES                33,706                           33,706
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   054   0603712S                   GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D                16,836                           16,836
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
   055   0603713S                   DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION          29,683                           29,683
                                     ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY.
   056   0603716D8Z                 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL              57,796                           57,796
                                     RESEARCH PROGRAM.
   057   0603720S                   MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY          72,144                           72,144
                                     DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT.
   058   0603727D8Z                 JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM..           7,405                            7,405
   059   0603739E                   ADVANCED ELECTRONICS                 92,246                           92,246
                                     TECHNOLOGIES.
   060   0603760E                   COMMAND, CONTROL AND                243,265                          243,265
                                     COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
   062   0603766E                   NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE             386,926                          386,926
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   063   0603767E                   SENSOR TECHNOLOGY..........         312,821                          312,821
   064   0603769SE                  DISTRIBUTED LEARNING                 10,692                           10,692
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   065   0603781D8Z                 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING                 15,776                           15,776
                                     INSTITUTE.
   066   0603826D8Z                 QUICK REACTION SPECIAL               69,319          -5,000           64,319
                                     PROJECTS.
         .........................      Program decrease.......                         [-5,000]
   068   0603832D8Z                 DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION           3,000                            3,000
                                     MANAGEMENT OFFICE.
   071   0603941D8Z                 TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE &          81,148                           81,148
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
   072   0604055D8Z                 OPERATIONAL ENERGY                   31,800                           31,800
                                     CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
   073   0303310D8Z                 CWMD SYSTEMS...............          46,066                           46,066
   074   1160402BB                  SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY              57,622                           57,622
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL ADVANCED              2,933,402           2,348        2,935,750
                                       TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................
         .........................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES
   077   0603161D8Z                 NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL             41,072                           41,072
                                     PHYSICAL SECURITY
                                     EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
   079   0603600D8Z                 WALKOFF....................          90,558                           90,558
   080   0603714D8Z                 ADVANCED SENSORS                     15,518                           15,518
                                     APPLICATION PROGRAM.
   081   0603851D8Z                 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY               51,462                           51,462
                                     TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
                                     PROGRAM.
   082   0603881C                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           299,598                          299,598
                                     TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
   083   0603882C                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE         1,003,768          40,000        1,043,768
                                     MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT.
         .........................      BMD program increase...                         [40,000]
   084   0603884BP                  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             179,236                          179,236
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
   085   0603884C                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           392,893                          392,893
                                     SENSORS.
   086   0603890C                   BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS......         410,863                          410,863
   087   0603891C                   SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA......         310,261                          310,261
   088   0603892C                   AEGIS BMD..................         929,208                          929,208
   089   0603893C                   SPACE TRACKING &                     31,346                           31,346
                                     SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
   090   0603895C                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE             6,389                            6,389
                                     SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
   091   0603896C                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           443,484                          443,484
                                     COMMAND AND CONTROL,
                                     BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
                                     COMMUNICATI.
   092   0603898C                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            46,387                           46,387
                                     JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
   093   0603904C                   MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION          58,530                           58,530
                                     & OPERATIONS CENTER
                                     (MDIOC).
   094   0603906C                   REGARDING TRENCH...........          16,199                           16,199
   095   0603907C                   SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR               64,409                           64,409
                                     (SBX).
   096   0603913C                   ISRAELI COOPERATIVE                  96,803         172,000          268,803
                                     PROGRAMS.
         .........................      Program increase for                           [172,000]
                                        Israeli Cooperative
                                        Programs.
   097   0603914C                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           386,482                          386,482
                                     TEST.
   098   0603915C                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           485,294                          485,294
                                     TARGETS.
   099   0603920D8Z                 HUMANITARIAN DEMINING......          10,194                           10,194
   100   0603923D8Z                 COALITION WARFARE..........          10,139                           10,139
   101   0604016D8Z                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                 2,907                            2,907
                                     CORROSION PROGRAM.
   102   0604250D8Z                 ADVANCED INNOVATIVE                 190,000         -20,000          170,000
                                     TECHNOLOGIES.
         .........................      Program decrease.......                        [-20,000]
   103   0604400D8Z                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)           3,702                            3,702
                                     UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM
                                     (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT.
   104   0604445J                   WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE.....          53,000                           53,000
   107   0604787J                   JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION..           7,002                            7,002
   108   0604828J                   JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION AND           7,102                            7,102
                                     INTEROPERABILITY TEAM.
   109   0604880C                   LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3)....         123,444                          123,444
   110   0604881C                   AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO-            263,695                          263,695
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   113   0605170D8Z                 SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND              12,500                           12,500
                                     INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
   114   0303191D8Z                 JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC                 2,656                            2,656
                                     TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
   115   0305103C                   CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE..             961                              961
         .........................     SUBTOTAL ADVANCED              6,047,062         192,000        6,239,062
                                       COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
                                       AND PROTOTYPES.
         .........................
         .........................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
                                     DEMONSTRATION
   116   0604161D8Z                 NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL              7,936                            7,936
                                     PHYSICAL SECURITY
                                     EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
   117   0604165D8Z                 PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE                 70,762                           70,762
                                     CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
   118   0604384BP                  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             345,883                          345,883
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
   119   0604764K                   ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT           25,459                           25,459
                                     PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO).
   120   0604771D8Z                 JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION           17,562                           17,562
                                     DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
                                     (JTIDS).
   121   0605000BR                  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION           6,887                            6,887
                                     DEFEAT CAPABILITIES.
   122   0605013BL                  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               12,530                           12,530
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   123   0605021SE                  HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY             286                              286
                                     INITIATIVE.
   124   0605022D8Z                 DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY                 3,244                            3,244
                                     PROGRAM.
   125   0605027D8Z                 OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT                6,500                            6,500
                                     INITIATIVES.
   126   0605070S                   DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS               15,326                           15,326
                                     DEVELOPMENT AND
                                     DEMONSTRATION.
   127   0605075D8Z                 DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION          19,351                           19,351
   128   0605080S                   DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES            41,465                           41,465
                                     (DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
   129   0605090S                   DEFENSE RETIRED AND                  10,135                           10,135
                                     ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
                                     (DRAS).
   130   0605210D8Z                 DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC               9,546                            9,546
                                     PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
   131   0303141K                   GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT                14,241                           14,241
                                     SYSTEM.
   132   0305304D8Z                 DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY                 3,660                            3,660
                                     INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
                                     (EEIM).
         .........................     SUBTOTAL SYSTEM                  610,773                          610,773
                                       DEVELOPMENT AND
                                       DEMONSTRATION.
         .........................
         .........................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   133   0604774D8Z                 DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING           5,616                            5,616
                                     SYSTEM (DRRS).
   134   0604875D8Z                 JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE            3,092                            3,092
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   135   0604940D8Z                 CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION         254,503                          254,503
                                     INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
                                     (CTEIP).
   136   0604942D8Z                 ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS          21,661                           21,661
   138   0605100D8Z                 JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT            27,162                           27,162
                                     TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
   139   0605104D8Z                 TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT           24,501                           24,501
                                     AND ANALYSIS.
   142   0605126J                   JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND             43,176                           43,176
                                     MISSILE DEFENSE
                                     ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
   145   0605142D8Z                 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING........          44,246                           44,246
   146   0605151D8Z                 STUDIES AND ANALYSIS                  2,665                            2,665
                                     SUPPORT--OSD.
   147   0605161D8Z                 NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL              4,366                            4,366
                                     SECURITY.
   148   0605170D8Z                 SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND              27,901                           27,901
                                     INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
   149   0605200D8Z                 GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD                2,855                            2,855
                                     (INTELLIGENCE).
   150   0605384BP                  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             105,944                          105,944
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM.
   156   0605502KA                  SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE               400                              400
                                     RESEARCH.
   159   0605790D8Z                 SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION             1,634                            1,634
                                     RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
                                     BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
                                     TRANSFER.
   160   0605798D8Z                 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS          12,105                           12,105
   161   0605801KA                  DEFENSE TECHNICAL                    50,389                           50,389
                                     INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC).
   162   0605803SE                  R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD                 8,452                            8,452
                                     ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
                                     EVALUATION.
   163   0605804D8Z                 DEVELOPMENT TEST AND                 15,187           4,000           19,187
                                     EVALUATION.
         .........................      Program increase.......                          [4,000]
   164   0605898E                   MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D.........          71,362                           71,362
   165   0606100D8Z                 BUDGET AND PROGRAM                    4,100                            4,100
                                     ASSESSMENTS.
   166   0203345D8Z                 DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY           1,956                            1,956
                                     INITIATIVE (DOSI).
   167   0204571J                   JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL               10,321                           10,321
                                     SUPPORT.
   170   0303166J                   SUPPORT TO INFORMATION               11,552                           11,552
                                     OPERATIONS (IO)
                                     CAPABILITIES.
   172   0305193D8Z                 CYBER INTELLIGENCE.........           6,748                            6,748
   174   0804767D8Z                 COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT            44,005                           44,005
                                     AND TRAINING
                                     TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2).
   175   0901598C                   MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA.........          36,998                           36,998
   176   0901598D8W                 MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS WHS             612                              612
  177A   9999999999                 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........          44,367                           44,367
         .........................     SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT              887,876           4,000          891,876
                                       SUPPORT.
         .........................
         .........................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
                                     DEVELOPMENT
   178   0604130V                   ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM            3,988                            3,988
                                     (ESS).
   179   0605127T                   REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL                1,750                            1,750
                                     OUTREACH (RIO) AND
                                     PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
                                     INFORMATION MANA.
   180   0605147T                   OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN                   286                              286
                                     ASSISTANCE SHARED
                                     INFORMATION SYSTEM
                                     (OHASIS).
   181   0607210D8Z                 INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS             14,778                           14,778
                                     AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
   182   0607310D8Z                 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS                   2,953                            2,953
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   183   0607327T                   GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY              10,350                           10,350
                                     COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
                                     INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
                                     TSCMIS).
   184   0607384BP                  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL              28,496                           28,496
                                     DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
   185   0607828J                   JOINT INTEGRATION AND                11,968                           11,968
                                     INTEROPERABILITY.
   186   0208043J                   PLANNING AND DECISION AID             1,842                            1,842
                                     SYSTEM (PDAS).
   187   0208045K                   C4I INTEROPERABILITY.......          63,558                           63,558
   189   0301144K                   JOINT/ALLIED COALITION                3,931                            3,931
                                     INFORMATION SHARING.
   193   0302016K                   NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND               924                              924
                                     SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
   194   0302019K                   DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE           9,657                            9,657
                                     ENGINEERING AND
                                     INTEGRATION.
   195   0303126K                   LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS--           25,355                           25,355
                                     DCS.
   196   0303131K                   MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY          12,671                           12,671
                                     COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
                                     (MEECN).
   197   0303135G                   PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE               222                              222
                                     (PKI).
   198   0303136G                   KEY MANAGEMENT                       32,698                           32,698
                                     INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
   199   0303140D8Z                 INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  11,304                           11,304
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
   200   0303140G                   INFORMATION SYSTEMS                 125,854          20,000          145,854
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
         .........................      Accelerate SHARKSEER                            [20,000]
                                        deployment.
   202   0303150K                   GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL           33,793                           33,793
                                     SYSTEM.
   203   0303153K                   DEFENSE SPECTRUM                     13,423                           13,423
                                     ORGANIZATION.
   204   0303170K                   NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE                3,774                            3,774
                                     SERVICES (NCES).
   205   0303260D8Z                 DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION              951                              951
                                     PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO).
   206   0303610K                   TELEPORT PROGRAM...........           2,697                            2,697
   208   0304210BB                  SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR             19,294                           19,294
                                     CONTINGENCIES.
   212   0305103K                   CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE..           3,234                            3,234
   213   0305125D8Z                 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE               8,846                            8,846
                                     PROTECTION (CIP).
   217   0305186D8Z                 POLICY R&D PROGRAMS........           7,065                            7,065
   218   0305199D8Z                 NET CENTRICITY.............          23,984                           23,984
   221   0305208BB                  DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/            5,286                            5,286
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   224   0305208K                   DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/            3,400                            3,400
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   229   0305327V                   INSIDER THREAT.............           8,670                            8,670
   230   0305387D8Z                 HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY           2,110                            2,110
                                     TRANSFER PROGRAM.
   239   0708011S                   INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS....          22,366                           22,366
   240   0708012S                   LOGISTICS SUPPORT                     1,574                            1,574
                                     ACTIVITIES.
   241   0902298J                   MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS........           4,409                            4,409
   242   1105219BB                  MQ-9 UAV...................           9,702                            9,702
   243   1105232BB                  RQ-11 UAV..................             259                              259
   245   1160403BB                  AVIATION SYSTEMS...........         164,233                          164,233
   247   1160405BB                  INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS                  9,490                            9,490
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
   248   1160408BB                  OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS...          75,253                           75,253
   252   1160431BB                  WARRIOR SYSTEMS............          24,661                           24,661
   253   1160432BB                  SPECIAL PROGRAMS...........          20,908                           20,908
   259   1160480BB                  SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES......           3,672                            3,672
   262   1160483BB                  MARITIME SYSTEMS...........          57,905                           57,905
   264   1160489BB                  GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE             3,788                            3,788
                                     ACTIVITIES.
   265   1160490BB                  OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS             16,225                           16,225
                                     INTELLIGENCE.
  265A   9999999999                 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........       3,118,502          -5,000        3,113,502
         .........................      Classified adjustment..                         [-5,000]
         .........................     SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL           4,032,059          15,000        4,047,059
                                       SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
         .........................
         .........................       TOTAL RESEARCH,             16,766,084         223,348       16,989,432
                                         DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                         EVAL, DW.
         .........................
         .........................  OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
                                     DEFENSE
         .........................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   001   0605118OTE                 OPERATIONAL TEST AND                 74,583                           74,583
                                     EVALUATION.
   002   0605131OTE                 LIVE FIRE TEST AND                   45,142                           45,142
                                     EVALUATION.
   003   0605814OTE                 OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES          48,013           5,000           53,013
                                     AND ANALYSES.
         .........................      Information Assurance                            [5,000]
                                        Testing and Exercises.
         .........................     SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT              167,738           5,000          172,738
                                       SUPPORT.
         .........................
         .........................       TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST         167,738           5,000          172,738
                                         & EVAL, DEFENSE.
         .........................
         .........................       TOTAL RDT&E...........      63,533,947         257,452       63,791,399
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
 


SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2015                            House
    Line                           Item                            Request      House  Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   MANEUVER UNITS..................................         969,281         100,000          1,069,281
                 Restore Critical Operations Tempo...........                        [100,000]
       020   MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................          61,990                             61,990
       030   ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..........................         450,987            -500            450,487
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       040   THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................         545,773          -2,000            543,773
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       050   LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................       1,057,453         -11,000          1,046,453
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                        [-10,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       060   AVIATION ASSETS.................................       1,409,347         138,600          1,547,947
                 Restore Critical Aviation Readiness.........                        [100,000]
                 UH-60A to UH-60L Conversions/ARNG                                    [38,600]
                 Modernization...............................
       070   FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..............       3,592,334         -25,000          3,567,334
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                        [-19,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-5,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       080   LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS...................         411,388                            411,388
       090   LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................       1,001,232          99,500          1,100,732
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 Restore Critical Depot Maintenance..........                        [100,000]
       100   BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.........................       7,428,972         -82,000          7,346,972
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                        [-27,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-55,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       110   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                  2,066,434         -90,000          1,976,434
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-7,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-58,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 Transfer to Arlington National Cemetery.....                        [-25,000]
       120   MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.........         411,863            -500            411,363
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       130   COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............         179,399            -500            178,899
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       170   COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.......         432,281          -2,500            429,781
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,500]
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................      20,018,734         124,100         20,142,834
 
             MOBILIZATION
       180   STRATEGIC MOBILITY..............................         316,776          -1,000            315,776
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       190   ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS.......................         187,609          -1,500            186,109
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
       200   INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.........................           6,463          80,000             86,463
                 Industrial Base Intiative-Body Armor........                         [80,000]
                 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION.......................         510,848          77,500            588,348
 
             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
       210   OFFICER ACQUISITION.............................         124,766          -1,000            123,766
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       220   RECRUIT TRAINING................................          51,968            -500             51,468
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       230   ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING.......................          43,735                             43,735
       240   SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..........         456,563            -500            456,063
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       250   SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING......................         886,529         -10,500            876,029
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-8,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       260   FLIGHT TRAINING.................................         890,070                            890,070
       270   PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..............         193,291          -3,000            190,291
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       280   TRAINING SUPPORT................................         552,359          -1,000            551,359
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       290   RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING......................         466,927          -5,500            461,427
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-5,500]
       300   EXAMINING.......................................         194,588                            194,588
       310   OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................         205,782          -8,000            197,782
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-8,000]
       320   CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.................         150,571          -1,500            149,071
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
       330   JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS...........         169,784          -7,000            162,784
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-7,000]
                 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............       4,386,933         -38,500          4,348,433
 
             ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
       350   SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION......................         541,877                            541,877
       360   CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES.......................         722,291                            722,291
       370   LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.....................         602,034           2,000            604,034
                 Corrosion Mitigation Activities.............                          [5,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       380   AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT...........................         422,277          -2,500            419,777
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       390   ADMINISTRATION..................................         405,442            -500            404,942
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       400   SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS......................       1,624,742          -2,000          1,622,742
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       410   MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.............................         289,771            -500            289,271
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       420   OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.........................         390,924          -5,500            385,424
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-5,500]
       430   OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT...........................       1,118,540          -1,500          1,117,040
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
       440   ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES..........................         241,234          -1,500            239,734
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
       450   REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..........................         243,509          -1,000            242,509
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       460   FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS........         200,615          -1,500            199,115
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
       470   INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS.............         462,591            -500            462,091
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       480   MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS..................          27,375                             27,375
      520A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.............................       1,030,411          -1,000          1,029,411
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES.........       8,323,633         -16,000          8,307,633
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       530   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -516,200           -516,200
                 Civilian personnel underexecution...........                        [-80,000]
                 Foreign Currency adjustments................                        [-48,900]
                 Unobligated balances........................                       [-387,300]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                        -516,200           -516,200
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........      33,240,148        -369,100         32,871,048
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
             OPERATING FORCES
       020   MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................          15,200                             15,200
       030   ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..........................         502,664          29,500            532,164
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Restore Critical Operations Tempo...........                         [30,000]
       040   THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................         107,489                            107,489
       050   LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................         543,989                            543,989
       060   AVIATION ASSETS.................................          72,963                             72,963
       070   FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..............         360,082          -2,000            358,082
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       080   LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS...................          72,491                             72,491
       090   LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................          58,873          35,000             93,873
                 Restore Critical Depot Maintenance..........                         [35,000]
       100   BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.........................         388,961          -2,500            386,461
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,500]
       110   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                    228,597          -9,500            219,097
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-9,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       120   MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.........          39,590                             39,590
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................       2,390,899          50,500          2,441,399
 
             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       130   SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION......................          10,608                             10,608
       140   ADMINISTRATION..................................          18,587                             18,587
       150   SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS......................           6,681                              6,681
       160   MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.............................           9,192                              9,192
       170   RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING......................          54,602            -500             54,102
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...........          99,670            -500             99,170
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       180   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                         -38,700            -38,700
                 Unobligated balances........................                        [-38,700]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                         -38,700            -38,700
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES....       2,490,569          11,300          2,501,869
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   MANEUVER UNITS..................................         660,648         249,100            909,748
                 National Guard combat training center                                [70,000]
                 rotations activities........................
                 National Guard critical operations tempo                             [99,600]
                 activities..................................
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Restore Critical Operations Tempo...........                         [80,000]
       020   MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................         165,942                            165,942
       030   ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..........................         733,800                            733,800
       040   THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................          83,084                             83,084
       050   LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................          22,005                             22,005
       060   AVIATION ASSETS.................................         920,085                            920,085
       070   FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..............         680,887          -7,000            673,887
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-5,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       080   LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS...................          69,726                             69,726
       090   LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................         138,263          47,600            185,863
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 Restore Critical Depot Maintenance..........                         [49,600]
       100   BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.........................         804,517         -12,500            792,017
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-10,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       110   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                    490,205         -18,500            471,705
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-18,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       120   MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.........         872,140          -1,000            871,140
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................       5,641,302         257,700          5,899,002
 
             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       130   SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION......................           6,690                              6,690
       140   REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..........................           1,765                              1,765
       150   ADMINISTRATION..................................          63,075           2,000             65,075
                 National Guard State Partnership Program....                          [2,000]
       160   SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS......................          37,372                             37,372
       170   MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.............................           6,484                              6,484
       180   OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.........................         274,085          -4,500            269,585
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-4,500]
                 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...........         389,471          -2,500            386,971
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       190   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                         -72,400            -72,400
                 Unobligated balances........................                        [-72,400]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                         -72,400            -72,400
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........       6,030,773         182,800          6,213,573
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.............       4,947,202          55,000          5,002,202
                 FHP Unit Level Maintenance..................                         [56,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       020   FLEET AIR TRAINING..............................       1,647,943          11,500          1,659,443
                 FHP Unit Level Maintenance..................                         [12,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       030   AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES..          37,050                             37,050
       040   AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT...............          96,139            -500             95,639
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       050   AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............................         363,763          -1,000            362,763
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       060   AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE......................         814,770         121,100            935,870
                 Aviation Depot Maintenance..................                        [111,000]
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                         [10,100]
       070   AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...............          36,494                             36,494
       080   AVIATION LOGISTICS..............................         350,641         122,500            473,141
                  Aviation Logistics.........................                        [123,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       090   MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS...............       3,865,379          94,500          3,959,879
                  Joint High Speed Vessel Operations.........                         [10,000]
                 CLF steaming days...........................                         [13,000]
                 Corrosion Mitigation Activities.............                          [5,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-5,500]
                 T-AKEs to Full Operational Status...........                         [72,000]
       100   SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING..............         711,243          -1,500            709,743
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       110   SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................       5,296,408          31,200          5,327,608
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                         [33,700]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       120   SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................       1,339,077          -3,200          1,335,877
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                            [300]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-3,500]
       130   COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS...........................         708,634          -2,000            706,634
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,000]
       140   ELECTRONIC WARFARE..............................          91,599            -500             91,099
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       150   SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE..................         207,038            -500            206,538
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       160   WARFARE TACTICS.................................         432,715          -1,000            431,715
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       170   OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........         338,116            -500            337,616
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       180   COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...........................         892,316          -1,000            891,316
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       190   EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE...........................         128,486                            128,486
       200   DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT........................           2,472                              2,472
       210   COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............         101,200            -500            100,700
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       220   COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.....         188,920          -2,500            186,420
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,500]
       230   CRUISE MISSILE..................................         109,911                            109,911
       240   FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE.........................       1,172,823                          1,172,823
       250   IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT..............         104,139                            104,139
       260   WEAPONS MAINTENANCE.............................         490,911            -500            490,411
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       270   OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT....................         324,861          -1,000            323,861
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       290   ENTERPRISE INFORMATION..........................         936,743          -2,500            934,243
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,500]
       300   SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION......       1,483,495         -60,500          1,422,995
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-60,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       310   BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..........................       4,398,667         -34,500          4,364,167
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-34,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................      31,619,155         322,100         31,941,255
 
             MOBILIZATION
       320   SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE...................         526,926                            526,926
       330   READY RESERVE FORCE.............................             195                                195
       340   AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS..............           6,704                              6,704
       350   SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS..................         251,538         -46,000            205,538
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                        [-46,000]
       360   EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS...........         124,323                            124,323
       370   INDUSTRIAL READINESS............................           2,323                              2,323
       380   COAST GUARD SUPPORT.............................          20,333                             20,333
                 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION.......................         932,342         -46,000            886,342
 
             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
       390   OFFICER ACQUISITION.............................         156,214            -500            155,714
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       400   RECRUIT TRAINING................................           8,863             100              8,963
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                            [100]
       410   RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.................         148,150                            148,150
       420   SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING......................         601,501           2,700            604,201
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                          [7,200]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-4,500]
       430   FLIGHT TRAINING.................................           8,239                              8,239
       440   PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..............         164,214           1,148            165,362
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                          [1,000]
                 Naval Sea Cadets............................                          [1,148]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       450   TRAINING SUPPORT................................         182,619             400            183,019
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                            [900]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       460   RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING......................         230,589            -500            230,089
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       470   OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................         115,595          -1,500            114,095
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
       480   CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.................          79,606            -500             79,106
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       490   JUNIOR ROTC.....................................          41,664          -2,000             39,664
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,000]
                 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............       1,737,254            -652          1,736,602
 
             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       500   ADMINISTRATION..................................         858,871          -6,000            852,871
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-6,000]
       510   EXTERNAL RELATIONS..............................          12,807                             12,807
       520   CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT......         119,863                            119,863
       530   MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT......         356,113          -3,100            353,013
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                            [900]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-4,000]
       540   OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.........................         255,605            -500            255,105
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       550   SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS......................         339,802          -2,000            337,802
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,000]
       570   SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION......................         172,203                            172,203
       590   PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN................         283,621          -1,000            282,621
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       600   ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..............       1,111,464          -1,000          1,110,464
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       610   HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT.........          43,232                             43,232
       620   COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS..........................          25,689                             25,689
       630   SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS............          73,159            -500             72,659
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       640   NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE.....................         548,640            -500            548,140
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       700   INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES.........           4,713                              4,713
      720A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.............................         531,324          -1,000            530,324
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...........       4,737,106         -15,600          4,721,506
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       730   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -402,900           -402,900
                 Civilian personnel underexecution...........                        [-80,000]
                 Foreign Currency adjustments................                        [-74,200]
                 Unobligated balances........................                       [-248,700]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                        -402,900           -402,900
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........      39,025,857        -143,052         38,882,805
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   OPERATIONAL FORCES..............................         905,744          38,300            944,044
                 Corrosion Mitigation Activities.............                          [5,000]
                 Crisis Response Operations Unfunded                                  [33,800]
                 Requirement.................................
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       020   FIELD LOGISTICS.................................         921,543          -1,000            920,543
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       030   DEPOT MAINTENANCE...............................         229,058          51,000            280,058
                 Restore Critical Depot Maintenance..........                         [51,000]
       040   MARITIME PREPOSITIONING.........................          87,660                             87,660
       050   SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........         573,926         -17,000            556,926
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-16,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       060   BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..........................       1,983,118          -5,500          1,977,618
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-4,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................       4,701,049          65,800          4,766,849
 
             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
       070   RECRUIT TRAINING................................          18,227                             18,227
       080   OFFICER ACQUISITION.............................             948                                948
       090   SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING......................          98,448                             98,448
       100   PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..............          42,305                             42,305
       110   TRAINING SUPPORT................................         330,156          -2,000            328,156
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       120   RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING......................         161,752                            161,752
       130   OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................          19,137            -500             18,637
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       140   JUNIOR ROTC.....................................          23,277                             23,277
                 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............         694,250          -2,500            691,750
 
             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       150   SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION......................          36,359                             36,359
       160   ADMINISTRATION..................................         362,608         -10,100            352,508
                 Marine Museum Unjustified Growth............                         [-9,100]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       180   ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..............          70,515                             70,515
      180A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.............................          44,706                             44,706
                 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...........         514,188         -10,100            504,088
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       190   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -109,900           -109,900
                 Foreign Currency adjustments................                        [-28,400]
                 Unobligated balances........................                        [-81,500]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                        -109,900           -109,900
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS       5,909,487         -56,700          5,852,787
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.............         565,842           7,900            573,742
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                          [7,900]
       020   INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................           5,948                              5,948
       040   AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE......................          82,636           2,300             84,936
                 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)                          [2,300]
       050   AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...............             353                                353
       060   AVIATION LOGISTICS..............................           7,007                              7,007
       070   MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS...............           8,190                              8,190
       080   SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING..............             556                                556
       090   SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................           4,571                              4,571
       100   COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS...........................          14,472                             14,472
       110   COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...........................         119,056                            119,056
       120   WEAPONS MAINTENANCE.............................           1,852                              1,852
       130   ENTERPRISE INFORMATION..........................          25,354                             25,354
       140   SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION......          48,271          -2,000             46,271
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       150   BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..........................         101,921            -500            101,421
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................         986,029           7,700            993,729
 
             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       160   ADMINISTRATION..................................           1,520                              1,520
       170   MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT......          12,998                             12,998
       180   SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS......................           3,395                              3,395
       190   ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..............           3,158                              3,158
                 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...........          21,071                             21,071
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       210   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                         -10,500            -10,500
                 Unobligated balances........................                        [-10,500]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                         -10,500            -10,500
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES....       1,007,100          -2,800          1,004,300
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   OPERATING FORCES................................          93,093                             93,093
       020   DEPOT MAINTENANCE...............................          18,377                             18,377
       030   SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION......          29,232          -1,500             27,732
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       040   BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..........................         106,447          -1,000            105,447
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................         247,149          -2,500            244,649
 
             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       050   SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION......................             914                                914
       060   ADMINISTRATION..................................          11,831                             11,831
       070   RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING......................           8,688                              8,688
                 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...........          21,433                             21,433
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       080   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                            -100               -100
                 Unobligated balances........................                           [-100]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                            -100               -100
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE..         268,582          -2,600            265,982
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...........................       3,163,457          93,100          3,256,557
                 Corrosion Prevention........................                          [5,000]
                 Cyber Weapon System Ops.....................                         [50,000]
                 Cyberspace Defense Weapon System and Cyber                           [30,000]
                 Mission Forces..............................
                 Nuclear Force Improvement Program--Security                           [8,600]
                 Forces......................................
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       020   COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES.......................       1,694,339          -8,000          1,686,339
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-8,000]
       030   AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)..       1,579,178          -4,500          1,574,678
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       040   DEPOT MAINTENANCE...............................       6,119,522          -8,000          6,111,522
                 RC/OC-135 Contractor Logistics Support                               [-8,000]
                 Unjustified Growth..........................
       050   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                  1,453,589          -5,600          1,447,989
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Nuclear Force Improvement Program--                                   [3,400]
                 Installation Surety.........................
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-9,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       060   BASE SUPPORT....................................       2,599,419         -12,000          2,587,419
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-10,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       070   GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING....................         908,790          11,071            919,861
                 Program increase............................                         [14,571]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       080   OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS...................         856,306           6,600            862,906
                 Nuclear Force Improvement Program--ICBM                               [9,600]
                 Training Hardware...........................
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-3,000]
       090   TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES.....         800,689            -500            800,189
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       100   LAUNCH FACILITIES...............................         282,710                            282,710
       110   SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS...........................         397,818            -500            397,318
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       120   COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.....         871,840          12,600            884,440
                 PACOM Prepositioned Munition Shortfall                               [19,100]
                 Mitigation..................................
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-6,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       130   COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............         237,348                            237,348
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................      20,965,005          84,271         21,049,276
 
             MOBILIZATION
       140   AIRLIFT OPERATIONS..............................       1,968,810          -2,500          1,966,310
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,500]
       150   MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS.......................         139,743            -500            139,243
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       160   DEPOT MAINTENANCE...............................       1,534,560                          1,534,560
       170   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                    173,627          -2,000            171,627
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       180   BASE SUPPORT....................................         688,801          -2,500            686,301
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION.......................       4,505,541          -7,500          4,498,041
 
             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
       190   OFFICER ACQUISITION.............................          82,396                             82,396
       200   RECRUIT TRAINING................................          19,852                             19,852
       210   RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC)..........          76,134          -3,000             73,134
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-3,000]
       220   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                    212,226          -3,500            208,726
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-3,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       230   BASE SUPPORT....................................         759,809          -5,500            754,309
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-4,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       240   SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING......................         356,157                            356,157
       250   FLIGHT TRAINING.................................         697,594          -3,000            694,594
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       260   PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..............         219,441          -1,000            218,441
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       270   TRAINING SUPPORT................................          91,001                             91,001
       280   DEPOT MAINTENANCE...............................         316,688                            316,688
       290   RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING......................          73,920                             73,920
       300   EXAMINING.......................................           3,121                              3,121
       310   OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................         181,718          -7,500            174,218
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-7,500]
       320   CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.................         147,667            -500            147,167
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       330   JUNIOR ROTC.....................................          63,250          -3,000             60,250
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-3,000]
                 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............       3,300,974         -27,000          3,273,974
 
             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       340   LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................       1,003,513          40,500          1,044,013
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SDT Program.................................                         [41,000]
       350   TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES....................         843,449          -2,000            841,449
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,000]
       360   DEPOT MAINTENANCE...............................          78,126                             78,126
       370   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                    247,677          -3,500            244,177
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-3,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       380   BASE SUPPORT....................................       1,103,442          -7,000          1,096,442
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-5,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       390   ADMINISTRATION..................................         597,234          -1,000            596,234
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       400   SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS......................         506,840                            506,840
       410   OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES....................         892,256          -3,000            889,256
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-2,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       420   CIVIL AIR PATROL................................          24,981                             24,981
       450   INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT...........................          92,419            -500             91,919
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
      450A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.............................       1,169,736         -10,500          1,159,236
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-9,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...........       6,559,673          13,000          6,572,673
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       460   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -242,900           -242,900
                 Civilian personnel underexecution...........                        [-80,000]
                 Foreign Currency adjustments................                        [-51,900]
                 Readiness support...........................                        [221,500]
                 Unobligated balances........................                       [-332,500]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                        -242,900           -242,900
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE...      35,331,193        -180,129         35,151,064
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...........................       1,719,467                          1,719,467
       020   MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS......................         211,132                            211,132
       030   DEPOT MAINTENANCE...............................         530,301                            530,301
       040   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                     85,672          -1,000             84,672
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       050   BASE SUPPORT....................................         367,966          -2,500            365,466
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-2,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................       2,914,538          -3,500          2,911,038
 
             ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
       060   ADMINISTRATION..................................          59,899                             59,899
       070   RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING......................          14,509                             14,509
       080   MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC)..........          20,345                             20,345
       090   OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)............           6,551                              6,551
                 SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE              101,304                            101,304
                 ACTIVITIES..................................
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       110   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                         -13,400            -13,400
                 Unobligated balances........................                        [-13,400]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                         -13,400            -13,400
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE..       3,015,842         -16,900          2,998,942
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.............................       3,367,729          -1,000          3,366,729
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       020   MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS......................         718,295          -1,000            717,295
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       030   DEPOT MAINTENANCE...............................       1,528,695                          1,528,695
       040   FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION &                    137,604          -4,000            133,604
              MODERNIZATION..................................
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-4,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       050   BASE SUPPORT....................................         581,536         -12,500            569,036
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-12,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................       6,333,859         -18,500          6,315,359
 
             ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
       060   ADMINISTRATION..................................          27,812                             27,812
       070   RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING......................          31,188            -500             30,688
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE              59,000            -500             58,500
                 ACTIVITIES..................................
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       080   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                            -800               -800
                 Unobligated balances........................                           [-800]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                            -800               -800
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.........       6,392,859         -19,800          6,373,059
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
             OPERATING FORCES
       010   JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF...........................         462,107          -1,500            460,607
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
       020   SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES.....       4,762,245         -54,300          4,707,945
                 MSV--USSOCOM Maritime Support Vessel........                        [-20,300]
                 NCR--USSOCOM National Capitol Region Office.                         [-5,000]
                 POTFF--Human Performance....................                        [-23,300]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                        [-26,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-5,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 RSCC--Regional Special Operations Forces                             [-3,600]
                 Coordination Centers........................
                 USSOCOM Flight Operations (Flight Hours)....                         [31,460]
                 USSOCOM Joint Special Operations University.                         [-2,560]
                 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...................       5,224,352         -55,800          5,168,552
 
             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
       030   DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY..................         135,437                            135,437
       040   NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY.....................          80,082                             80,082
       050   SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND                  371,620                            371,620
              RECRUITING.....................................
                 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............         587,139                            587,139
 
             ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
       060   CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS.........................         119,888          21,000            140,888
                 STARBASE....................................                         [21,000]
       080   DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY...................         556,493                            556,493
       090   DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY..............       1,340,374            -500          1,339,874
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       100   DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................         633,300         -20,000            613,300
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                        [-20,000]
       110   DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY..............       1,263,678          -5,000          1,258,678
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-4,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-1,000]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       130   DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY...................          26,710                             26,710
       140   DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY........................         381,470          -1,000            380,470
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
       150   DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY..........................         194,520         -11,500            183,020
                 Program decrease............................                        [-10,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,500]
       160   DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE..........................          21,485                             21,485
       170   DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY.............         544,786         -21,000            523,786
                 Global Security Contingency Fund............                        [-30,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
                 Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership For Peace                         [10,000]
       180   DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE........................         527,812            -500            527,312
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       200   DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION......          32,787                             32,787
       230   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........       2,566,424         -14,500          2,551,924
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-6,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                   [-8,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       240   MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY..........................         416,644          -1,500            415,144
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                     [-500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
       260   OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT...................         186,987         -80,596            106,391
                 Office of Economic Adjustment...............                        [-80,596]
       265   OFFICE OF NET ASSESSMENT........................                          18,944             18,944
                 Program increase............................                         [10,000]
                 Transfer from line 270......................                          [8,944]
       270   OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..............       1,891,163        -100,744          1,790,419
                 BRAC 2015 Round Planning and Analyses.......                         [-4,800]
                 Corrosion Prevention Program Office.........                          [5,000]
                 DOD Rewards Program Underexecution..........                         [-4,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                        [-51,500]
                 Reduction in service contracts for                                  [-36,500]
                 facilities maintenance......................
                 Transfer funding for Office of Net                                   [-8,944]
                 Assessment to new line 265..................
       280   SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE               87,915                             87,915
              ACTIVITIES.....................................
       290   WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................         610,982          -1,000            609,982
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-1,000]
      290A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.............................      13,983,323           4,000         13,987,323
                 Classified adjustment.......................                         [10,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-6,000]
                 SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE           25,386,741        -213,896         25,172,845
                 ACTIVITIES..................................
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       300   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -280,400           -280,400
                 Civilian personnel underexecution...........                        [-75,000]
                 Foreign Currency adjustments................                        [-17,500]
                 Impact Aid..................................                         [25,000]
                 Unobligated balances........................                       [-212,900]
                 SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......................                        -280,400           -280,400
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE      31,198,232        -550,096         30,648,136
 
             MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
       010   US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES,                 13,723                             13,723
              DEFENSE........................................
       020   OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID...         100,000           4,500            104,500
                 Humanitarian Mine Action....................                          [5,000]
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
       030   COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION....................         365,108         -10,500            354,608
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                        [-10,500]
       040   ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD............................         212,875          -3,500            209,375
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                         [-3,500]
       050   ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY.................         201,560                            201,560
       060   ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY.................         277,294                            277,294
       070   ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE............         408,716                            408,716
       080   ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE..............           8,547                              8,547
       090   ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES...         208,353                            208,353
       100   OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND...           5,000          -5,000
                 Program decrease............................                         [-5,000]
       110   SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITIONS,           10,000          -4,800              5,200
              DEFENSE........................................
                 Reduction in contracts for Other Services...                           [-500]
                 Unjustified program increase................                         [-4,300]
                 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.......       1,811,176         -19,300          1,791,876
 
                  TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.........       1,811,176         -19,300          1,791,876
 
                  TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE..............     165,721,818      -1,166,377        164,555,441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
 


SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Item                           FY 2015  Request      House  Change     House  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations...................        128,957,593              49,430         129,007,023
     Air Force airborne warning and control system                                   12,200
     personnel......................................
     CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)...                                [48,000]
     Foreign Currency Adjustments...................                              [-193,200]
     Military Personnel unobligated balances........                              [-360,470]
     Recalcualtion from CPI-1 to CPI................                               [534,900]
     Special training and exercises for National                                     [8,000]
     Guard State Partnership Program................
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.          6,236,092               1,000           6,237,092
     CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)...                                 [1,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
 


SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Item                           FY 2015  Request      House  Change     House  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS....................             13,727                                  13,727
       TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY.............             13,727                                  13,727
 
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL).............             61,717                                  61,717
       TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........             61,717                                  61,717
 
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)......................             44,293                                  44,293
       TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE.....             44,293                                  44,293
 
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA..........................          1,114,731             100,000           1,214,731
     Working Capital Fund, DECA.....................                               [100,000]
       TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA.............          1,114,731             100,000           1,214,731
 
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............................            222,728                                 222,728
RDT&E...............................................            595,913                                 595,913
PROCUREMENT.........................................             10,227                                  10,227
       TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION....            828,868                                 828,868
 
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,                  719,096                                 719,096
 DEFENSE............................................
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM.......................            101,591                                 101,591
       TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG                       820,687                                 820,687
       ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
 
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...........................            310,830                                 310,830
PROCUREMENT.........................................              1,000                                   1,000
       TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........            311,830                                 311,830
 
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
IN-HOUSE CARE.......................................          8,799,086              85,300           8,884,386
     Implementation of Benefit Reform Proposal......                               [-30,000]
     Restoration of MHS Modernization...............                                [92,000]
     USSOCOM Behavioral Health and Warrior Care                                     [23,300]
     Management Program.............................
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE.................................         15,412,599             -58,000          15,354,599
     Implementation of Benefit Reform Proposal......                               [-58,000]
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT.........................          2,462,096                               2,462,096
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT..............................          1,557,347                               1,557,347
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES...............................            366,223                                 366,223
EDUCATION AND TRAINING..............................            750,866                                 750,866
BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS......................          1,683,694                               1,683,694
 
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
R&D RESEARCH........................................             10,317              10,000              20,317
     Surgical Critical Care Research................                                [10,000]
R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT..........................             49,015                                  49,015
R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT............................            226,410                                 226,410
R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION........................             97,787                                  97,787
R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT.........................            217,898                                 217,898
R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT..........................             38,075                                  38,075
R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT........................             15,092                                  15,092
 
PROCUREMENT
PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING.............................             13,057                                  13,057
PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION....................            283,030                                 283,030
PROC THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM............              3,145                                   3,145
PROC IEHR...........................................              9,181                                   9,181
 
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................           -161,857            -424,700            -586,557
     Foreign Currency adjustments...................                               [-13,100]
     Unobligated balances...........................                              [-411,600]
       TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................         31,833,061            -387,400          31,445,661
 
       TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS...................         35,028,914            -287,400          34,741,514
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
 


SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                   FY 2015                      House
        Account                    State/ Country                  Installation             Project Title          Request    House Change    Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army                     CALIFORNIA                          Concord                   Access Control Point...         9,900                       9,900
Army                     CALIFORNIA                          Concord                   General Purpose                 5,300                       5,300
                                                                                        Maintenance Shop.
Army                     CALIFORNIA                          Fort Irwin                Unmanned Aerial Vehicle        45,000                      45,000
                                                                                        Hangar.
Army                     COLORADO                            Fort Carson, Colorado     Aircraft Maintenance           60,000                      60,000
                                                                                        Hangar.
Army                     COLORADO                            Fort Carson, Colorado     Unmanned Aerial Vehicle        29,000                      29,000
                                                                                        Hangar.
Army                     GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA                Guantanamo Bay            Dining Facility........        12,000                      12,000
Army                     GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA                Guantanamo Bay            Health Clinic..........        11,800                      11,800
Army                     GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA                Guantanamo Bay            High Value Detainee                 0        69,000        69,000
                                                                                        Complex.
Army                     HAWAII                              Fort Shafter              Command and Control            96,000       -13,000        83,000
                                                                                        Facility (SCIF).
Army                     JAPAN                               Kadena AB                 Missile Magazine.......        10,600                      10,600
Army                     KENTUCKY                            Blue Grass Army Depot     Shipping and Receiving              0        15,000        15,000
                                                                                        Building.
Army                     KENTUCKY                            Fort Campbell, Kentucky   Unmanned Aerial Vehicle        23,000                      23,000
                                                                                        Hangar.
Army                     NEW YORK                            Fort Drum, New York       Unmanned Aerial Vehicle        27,000                      27,000
                                                                                        Hangar.
Army                     NEW YORK                            U.S. Military Academy     Cadet Barracks, Incr 3.        58,000                      58,000
Army                     PENNSYLVANIA                        Letterkenny Army Depot    Rebuild Shop...........        16,000                      16,000
Army                     SOUTH CAROLINA                      Fort Jackson              Trainee Barracks               52,000                      52,000
                                                                                        Complex 3, Ph1.
Army                     Texas                               Fort Hood                 Simulations Center.....             0        46,000        46,000
Army                     VIRGINIA                            Fort Lee                  Adv. Individual                     0        86,000        86,000
                                                                                        Training Barracks
                                                                                        Complex, Phase 3.
Army                     VIRGINIA                            Joint Base Langley-       Tactical Vehicle                7,700                       7,700
                                                              Eustis                    Hardstand.
Army                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Host Nation Support            33,000                      33,000
                                                              Locations                 FY15.
Army                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Minor Construction FY15        25,000                      25,000
                                                              Locations
Army                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design            18,127                      18,127
                                                              Locations                 FY15.
       Total Military Construction, Army                                                                             539,427       203,000       742,427
                         ..................................  ........................
Navy                     ARIZONA                             Yuma                      Aviation Maintenance           16,608                      16,608
                                                                                        and Support Complex.
Navy                     BAHRAIN ISLAND                      SW Asia                   P-8A Hangar............        27,826                      27,826
Navy                     CALIFORNIA                          Bridgeport                E-LMR Communications           16,180                      16,180
                                                                                        Towers.
Navy                     CALIFORNIA                          San Diego                 Steam Distribution             47,110                      47,110
                                                                                        System
                                                                                        Decentralization.
Navy                     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                District Of Columbia      Electronics Science and        31,735                      31,735
                                                                                        Technology Laboratory.
Navy                     DJIBOUTI                            Camp Lemonier, Djibouti   Entry Control Point....         9,923                       9,923
Navy                     FLORIDA                             Jacksonville              MH60 Parking Apron.....         8,583                       8,583
Navy                     FLORIDA                             Jacksonville              P-8A Runway Thresholds         21,652                      21,652
                                                                                        and Taxiways.
Navy                     FLORIDA                             Mayport                   LCS Operational                20,520                      20,520
                                                                                        Training Facility.
Navy                     GUAM                                Joint Region Marianas     GSE Shops at North Ramp        21,880                      21,880
Navy                     GUAM                                Joint Region Marianas     MWSS Facilities at             28,771                      28,771
                                                                                        North Ramp.
Navy                     HAWAII                              Kaneohe Bay               Facility Modifications         51,182                      51,182
                                                                                        for VMU, MWSD, & CH53E.
Navy                     HAWAII                              Kaneohe Bay               Road and Infrastructure         2,200                       2,200
                                                                                        Improvements.
Navy                     HAWAII                              Pearl Harbor              Submarine Maneuvering           9,698                       9,698
                                                                                        Room Trainer Facility.
Navy                     JAPAN                               Iwakuni                   Security Mods DPRI              6,415                       6,415
                                                                                        MC167-T (CVW-5 E2D EA-
                                                                                        18G).
Navy                     JAPAN                               Kadena AB                 Aircraft Maint Hangar          19,411                      19,411
                                                                                        Alterations and SAP-F.
Navy                     JAPAN                               MCAS Futenma              Hangar & Rinse Facility         4,639                       4,639
                                                                                        Modernizations.
Navy                     JAPAN                               Okinawa                   LHD Practice Site              35,685                      35,685
                                                                                        Improvements.
Navy                     MARYLAND                            Annapolis                 Center for Cyber              120,112       -20,000       100,112
                                                                                        Security Studies
                                                                                        Building.
Navy                     MARYLAND                            Indian Head               Advanced Energetics            15,346                      15,346
                                                                                        Research Lab Complex
                                                                                        Ph 2.
Navy                     MARYLAND                            Patuxent River            Atlantic Test Range             9,860                       9,860
                                                                                        Facility.
Navy                     NEVADA                              Fallon                    Air Wing Training              27,763                      27,763
                                                                                        Facility.
Navy                     NEVADA                              Fallon                    Facility Alteration for         3,499                       3,499
                                                                                        F-35 Training Mission.
Navy                     NORTH CAROLINA                      Cherry Point Marine       Water Treatment Plant          41,588                      41,588
                                                              Corps Air Station         Replacement.
Navy                     PENNSYLVANIA                        Philadelphia              Ohio Replacement Power         23,985                      23,985
                                                                                        & Propulsion Facility.
Navy                     SOUTH CAROLINA                      Charleston                Nuclear Power                  35,716                      35,716
                                                                                        Operational Support
                                                                                        Facility.
Navy                     SPAIN                               Rota                      Ship Berthing Power            20,233                      20,233
                                                                                        Upgrades.
Navy                     VIRGINIA                            Dahlgren                  Missile Support                27,313                      27,313
                                                                                        Facility.
Navy                     VIRGINIA                            Norfolk                   EOD Consolidated Ops &         39,274                      39,274
                                                                                        Logistics Facilities.
Navy                     VIRGINIA                            Portsmouth                Submarine Maintenance           9,743                       9,743
                                                                                        Facility.
Navy                     VIRGINIA                            Quantico                  Ammunition Supply Point        12,613                      12,613
                                                                                        Expansion.
Navy                     VIRGINIA                            Yorktown                  Bachelor Enlisted              19,152                      19,152
                                                                                        Quarters.
Navy                     VIRGINIA                            Yorktown                  FAST Company Training           7,836                       7,836
                                                                                        Facility.
Navy                     WASHINGTON                          Bremerton                 Integrated Water               16,401                      16,401
                                                                                        Treatment Syst. DD 1,
                                                                                        2, & 5.
Navy                     WASHINGTON                          Kitsap                    Explosives Handling            83,778                      83,778
                                                                                        Wharf #2 (INC).
Navy                     WASHINGTON                          Port Angeles              TPS Port Angeles               20,638                      20,638
                                                                                        Forward Operating
                                                                                        Location.
Navy                     WASHINGTON                          Whidbey Island            P-8A Aircraft Apron and        24,390                      24,390
                                                                                        Supporting Facilities.
Navy                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     F-35C Facility Addition        16,594                      16,594
                                                              Locations                 and Modification.
Navy                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     F-35C Operational              22,391                      22,391
                                                              Locations                 Training Facility.
Navy                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     MCON Design Funds......        33,366                      33,366
                                                              Locations
Navy                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor               7,163                       7,163
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
       Total Military Construction, Navy                                                                           1,018,772       -20,000       998,772
                         ..................................  ........................
AF                       ALASKA                              Clear AFS                 Emergency Power Plant          11,500                      11,500
                                                                                        Fuel Storage.
AF                       ARIZONA                             Luke AFB                  F-35 Aircraft Mx               11,200                      11,200
                                                                                        Hangar--Sqdn #2.
AF                       ARIZONA                             Luke AFB                  F-35 Flightline                15,600                      15,600
                                                                                        Fillstands.
AF                       GUAM                                Joint Region Marianas     Guam Strike Fuel               64,000                      64,000
                                                                                        Systems Maint.Hangar
                                                                                        Inc 2.
AF                       GUAM                                Joint Region Marianas     PRTC--Combat Comm               3,750                       3,750
                                                                                        Infrastr Facility.
AF                       GUAM                                Joint Region Marianas     PRTC--RED HORSE                 3,150                       3,150
                                                                                        Logistics Facility.
AF                       GUAM                                Joint Region Marianas     PRTC--Satellite Fire            6,500                       6,500
                                                                                        Station.
AF                       KANSAS                              Mcconnell AFB             KC-46A ADAL Mobility            2,300                       2,300
                                                                                        Bag Strg Expansion.
AF                       KANSAS                              Mcconnell AFB             KC-46A ADAL Regional Mx        16,100                      16,100
                                                                                        Tng Facility.
AF                       KANSAS                              Mcconnell AFB             KC-46A Alter Composite          4,100                       4,100
                                                                                        Mx Shop.
AF                       KANSAS                              Mcconnell AFB             KC-46A Alter Taxiway            5,500                       5,500
                                                                                        Foxtrot.
AF                       KANSAS                              Mcconnell AFB             KC-46A Fuselage Trainer         6,400                       6,400
AF                       MARYLAND                            Fort Meade                CYBERCOM Joint                166,000                     166,000
                                                                                        Operations Center,
                                                                                        Increment 2.
AF                       MASSACHUSETTS                       Hanscom AFB               Dormitory (72 RM)......        13,500                      13,500
AF                       NEBRASKA                            Offutt AFB                USSTRATCOM Replacement        180,000                     180,000
                                                                                        Facility- Incr 4.
AF                       NEVADA                              Nellis AFB                F-22 Flight Simulator          14,000                      14,000
                                                                                        Facility.
AF                       NEVADA                              Nellis AFB                F-35 Aircraft Mx Unit--        31,000                      31,000
                                                                                        4 Bay Hangar.
AF                       NEVADA                              Nellis AFB                F-35 Weapons School             8,900                       8,900
                                                                                        Facility.
AF                       NEW JERSEY                          Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-   Fire Station...........         5,900                       5,900
                                                              Lakehurst
AF                       OKLAHOMA                            Tinker AFB                KC-46A Depot Maint             48,000                      48,000
                                                                                        Complex Spt Infrastr.
AF                       OKLAHOMA                            Tinker AFB                KC-46A Two-Bay Depot Mx        63,000                      63,000
                                                                                        Hangar.
AF                       TEXAS                               Joint Base San Antonio    Fire Station...........         5,800                       5,800
AF                       UNITED KINGDOM                      Croughton RAF             JIAC Consolidation--           92,223                      92,223
                                                                                        Phase 1.
AF                       WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Various Worldwide         Planning and Design....        10,738                      10,738
                                                              Locations
AF                       WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Various Worldwide         Unspecified Minor              22,613                      22,613
                                                              Locations                 Military Construction.
       Total Military Construction, Air Force                                                                        811,774             0       811,774
                         ..................................  ........................
Def-Wide                 ARIZONA                             Fort Huachuca             JITC Building 52120             1,871                       1,871
                                                                                        Renovation.
Def-Wide                 AUSTRALIA                           Geraldton                 Combined Communications         9,600                       9,600
                                                                                        Gateway Geraldton.
Def-Wide                 BELGIUM                             Brussels                  Brussells Elementary/          41,626                      41,626
                                                                                        High School
                                                                                        Replacement.
Def-Wide                 BELGIUM                             Brussels                  NATO Headquarters              37,918                      37,918
                                                                                        Facility.
Def-Wide                 CALIFORNIA                          Camp Pendleton,           SOF Comm/Elec                  11,841                      11,841
                                                              California                Maintenance Facility.
Def-Wide                 CALIFORNIA                          Coronado                  SOF Logistics Support          41,740                      41,740
                                                                                        Unit 1 Ops Facility #1.
Def-Wide                 CALIFORNIA                          Coronado                  SOF Support Activity           28,600                      28,600
                                                                                        Ops Facility #2.
Def-Wide                 CALIFORNIA                          Lemoore                   Replace Fuel Storage &         52,500                      52,500
                                                                                        Distribution Fac..
Def-Wide                 COLORADO                            Peterson AFB              Dental Clinic                  15,200                      15,200
                                                                                        Replacement.
Def-Wide                 CONUS                               Various Locations         East Coast Missile Site             0        20,000        20,000
                                                                                        Planning and Design.
Def-Wide                 CONUS CLASSIFIED                    Classified Location       SOF Skills Training            53,073                      53,073
                                                                                        Facility.
Def-Wide                 GEORGIA                             Hunter Army Airfield      SOF Company Operations          7,692                       7,692
                                                                                        Facility.
Def-Wide                 GEORGIA                             Robins AFB                Replace Hydrant Fuel           19,900                      19,900
                                                                                        System.
Def-Wide                 GERMANY                             Rhine Ordnance Barracks   Medical Center                259,695       -70,000       189,695
                                                                                        Replacement Incr 4.
Def-Wide                 GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA                Guantanamo Bay            Replace Fuel Tank......        11,100                      11,100
Def-Wide                 GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA                Guantanamo Bay            W.T. Sampson E/M and HS        65,190                      65,190
                                                                                        Consolid./Replacement.
Def-Wide                 HAWAII                              Joint Base Pearl Harbor-  Replace Fuel Tanks.....         3,000                       3,000
                                                              Hickam
Def-Wide                 HAWAII                              Joint Base Pearl Harbor-  Upgrade Fire Supression        49,900                      49,900
                                                              Hickam                    & Ventilation Sys..
Def-Wide                 JAPAN                               Misawa AB                 Edgren High School             37,775                      37,775
                                                                                        Renovation.
Def-Wide                 JAPAN                               Okinawa                   Killin Elementary              71,481                      71,481
                                                                                        Replacement/Renovation.
Def-Wide                 JAPAN                               Okinawa                   Kubasaki High School           99,420                      99,420
                                                                                        Replacement/Renovation.
Def-Wide                 JAPAN                               Sasebo                    E.J. King High School          37,681                      37,681
                                                                                        Replacement/Renovation.
Def-Wide                 KENTUCKY                            Fort Campbell, Kentucky   SOF System Integration         18,000                      18,000
                                                                                        Maintenance Office Fac.
Def-Wide                 MARYLAND                            Fort Meade                NSAW Campus Feeders            54,207                      54,207
                                                                                        Phase 1.
Def-Wide                 MARYLAND                            Fort Meade                NSAW Recapitalize              45,521                      45,521
                                                                                        Building #1/Site M Inc
                                                                                        3.
Def-Wide                 MARYLAND                            Joint Base Andrews        Construct Hydrant Fuel         18,300                      18,300
                                                                                        System.
Def-Wide                 MICHIGAN                            Selfridge Angb            Replace Fuel                   35,100                      35,100
                                                                                        Distribution
                                                                                        Facilities.
Def-Wide                 MISSISSIPPI                         Stennis                   SOF Applied Instruction        10,323                      10,323
                                                                                        Facility.
Def-Wide                 MISSISSIPPI                         Stennis                   SOF Land Acquisition           17,224                      17,224
                                                                                        Western Maneuver Area.
Def-Wide                 NEVADA                              Fallon                    SOF Tactical Ground            20,241                      20,241
                                                                                        Mob. Vehicle Maint
                                                                                        Fac..
Def-Wide                 NEW MEXICO                          Cannon AFB                SOF Squadron Operations        23,333                      23,333
                                                                                        Facility (STS).
Def-Wide                 NORTH CAROLINA                      Camp Lejeune, North       Lejeune High School            41,306                      41,306
                                                              Carolina                  Addition/Renovation.
Def-Wide                 NORTH CAROLINA                      Camp Lejeune, North       SOF Intel/Ops Expansion        11,442                      11,442
                                                              Carolina
Def-Wide                 NORTH CAROLINA                      Fort Bragg                SOF Battalion                  37,074                      37,074
                                                                                        Operations Facility.
Def-Wide                 NORTH CAROLINA                      Fort Bragg                SOF Tactical Equipment          8,000                       8,000
                                                                                        Maintenance Facility.
Def-Wide                 NORTH CAROLINA                      Fort Bragg                SOF Training Command           48,062                      48,062
                                                                                        Building.
Def-Wide                 NORTH CAROLINA                      Seymour Johnson AFB       Replace Hydrant Fuel            8,500                       8,500
                                                                                        System.
Def-Wide                 SOUTH CAROLINA                      Beaufort                  Replace Fuel                   40,600                      40,600
                                                                                        Distibution Facilities.
Def-Wide                 SOUTH DAKOTA                        Ellsworth AFB             Construct Hydrant               8,000                       8,000
                                                                                        System.
Def-Wide                 TEXAS                               Fort Bliss                Hospital Replacement          131,500        70,000       201,500
                                                                                        Incr 6.
Def-Wide                 TEXAS                               Joint Base San Antonio    Medical Clinic                 38,300                      38,300
                                                                                        Replacement.
Def-Wide                 VIRGINIA                            Craney Island             Replace & Alter Fuel           36,500                      36,500
                                                                                        Distibution Facilities.
Def-Wide                 VIRGINIA                            Def Distribution Depot    Replace Access Control          5,700                       5,700
                                                              Richmond                  Point.
Def-Wide                 VIRGINIA                            Fort Belvoir              Parking Lot............         7,239                       7,239
Def-Wide                 VIRGINIA                            Joint Base Langley-       Hopsital Addition/CUP          41,200                      41,200
                                                              Eustis                    Replacement.
Def-Wide                 VIRGINIA                            Joint Expeditionary Base  SOF Human Performance          11,200                      11,200
                                                              Little Creek--Story       Center.
Def-Wide                 VIRGINIA                            Joint Expeditionary Base  SOF Indoor Dynamic             14,888                      14,888
                                                              Little Creek--Story       Range.
Def-Wide                 VIRGINIA                            Joint Expeditionary Base  SOF Mobile Comm Det            13,500                      13,500
                                                              Little Creek--Story       Support Facility.
Def-Wide                 VIRGINIA                            Pentagon                  Redundant Chilled Water        15,100                      15,100
                                                                                        Loop.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Contingency                     9,000        -9,000             0
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     ECIP Design............        10,000                      10,000
                                                              Locations
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Energy Conservation           150,000                     150,000
                                                              Locations                 Investment Program.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Exercise Related Minor          8,581                       8,581
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design....           745                         745
                                                              Locations
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design....        38,704       -20,000        18,704
                                                              Locations
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design....         1,183                       1,183
                                                              Locations
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design....        42,387                      42,387
                                                              Locations
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design....           599                         599
                                                              Locations
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design....        24,425       -20,000         4,425
                                                              Locations
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor               5,932                       5,932
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor               6,846                       6,846
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor              10,334                      10,334
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor               2,700                       2,700
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor               2,000                       2,000
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor               4,100                       4,100
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor               2,994                       2,994
                                                              Locations                 Milcon.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Various Worldwide         Planning and Design....        24,197                      24,197
                                                              Locations
       Total Military Construction, Defense-Wide                                                                   2,061,890       -29,000     2,032,890
                         ..................................  ........................
Chem Demil               KENTUCKY                            Blue Grass Army Depot     Ammunition                     38,715                      38,715
                                                                                        Demilitarization Ph XV.
       Total Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense                                                          38,715             0        38,715
                         ..................................  ........................
NATO                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Nato Security Investment  Nato Security                 199,700                     199,700
                                                              Program                   Investment Program.
       Total NATO Security Investment Program                                                                        199,700             0       199,700
                         ..................................  ........................
Army NG                  DELAWARE                            Dagsboro                  National Guard Vehicle              0        10,800        10,800
                                                                                        Maintenance Shop.
Army NG                  MAINE                               Augusta                   National Guard Reserve         30,000                      30,000
                                                                                        Center.
Army NG                  MARYLAND                            Havre De Grace            National Guard                 12,400                      12,400
                                                                                        Readiness Center.
Army NG                  MONTANA                             Helena                    National Guard                 38,000                      38,000
                                                                                        Readiness Center Add/
                                                                                        Alt.
Army NG                  NEW MEXICO                          Alamogordo                National Guard                      0         5,000         5,000
                                                                                        Readiness Center.
Army NG                  NORTH DAKOTA                        Valley City               National Guard Vehicle         10,800                      10,800
                                                                                        Maintenance Shop.
Army NG                  VERMONT                             North Hyde Park           National Guard Vehicle          4,400                       4,400
                                                                                        Maintenance Shop.
Army NG                  WASHINGTON                          Yakima                    Enlisted Barracks,                  0        19,000        19,000
                                                                                        Transient Training.
Army NG                  WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design....        17,600                      17,600
                                                              Locations
Army NG                  WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor              13,720                      13,720
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
       Total Military Construction, Army National Guard                                                              126,920        34,800       161,720
                         ..................................  ........................
Army Res                 CALIFORNIA                          Fresno                    Army Reserve Center/           22,000                      22,000
                                                                                        AMSA.
Army Res                 CALIFORNIA                          March (Riverside)         Army Reserve Center....             0        25,000        25,000
Army Res                 COLORADO                            Fort Carson, Colorado     Training Building               5,000                       5,000
                                                                                        Addition.
Army Res                 ILLINOIS                            Arlington Heights         Army Reserve Center....             0        26,000        26,000
Army Res                 MISSISSIPPI                         Starkville                Army Reserve Center....             0         9,300         9,300
Army Res                 NEW JERSEY                          Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-   Army Reserve Center....        26,000                      26,000
                                                              Lakehurst
Army Res                 NEW YORK                            Mattydale                 Army Reserve Center/           23,000                      23,000
                                                                                        AMSA.
Army Res                 VIRGINIA                            Fort Lee                  TASS Training Center...        16,000                      16,000
Army Res                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Planning and Design....         8,337                       8,337
                                                              Locations
Army Res                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Unspecified Minor               3,609                       3,609
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
       Total Military Construction, Army Reserve                                                                     103,946        60,300       164,246
                         ..................................  ........................
N/MC Res                 PENNSYLVANIA                        Pittsburgh                Reserve Training               17,650                      17,650
                                                                                        Center--Pittsburgh, PA.
N/MC Res                 WASHINGTON                          Whidbey Island            C-40 Aircraft                  27,755                      27,755
                                                                                        Maintenance Hangar.
N/MC Res                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     MCNR Planning & Design.         2,123                       2,123
                                                              Locations
N/MC Res                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     MCNR Unspecified Minor          4,000                       4,000
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
       Total Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve                                                     51,528             0        51,528
                         ..................................  ........................
Air NG                   CONNECTICUT                         Bradley IAP               Construct C-130 Fuel           16,306                      16,306
                                                                                        Cell and Corrosion
                                                                                        Contr.
Air NG                   IOWA                                Des Moines Map            REMOTELY PILOTED                8,993                       8,993
                                                                                        AIRCRAFT AND TARGETING
                                                                                        GROUP.
Air NG                   MICHIGAN                            W. K. Kellog Regional     RPA Beddown............         6,000                       6,000
                                                              Airport
Air NG                   NEW HAMPSHIRE                       Pease International       KC-46A ADAL Airfield            7,100                       7,100
                                                              Trade Port                Pavements & Hydrant
                                                                                        Syst.
Air NG                   NEW HAMPSHIRE                       Pease International       KC-46A ADAL Fuel Cell          16,800                      16,800
                                                              Trade Port                Building 253.
Air NG                   NEW HAMPSHIRE                       Pease International       KC-46A ADAL Maint              18,002                      18,002
                                                              Trade Port                Hangar Building 254.
Air NG                   PENNSYLVANIA                        Willow Grove ARF          RPA Operations Center..         5,662                       5,662
Air NG                   WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Various Worldwide         Planning and Design....         7,700                       7,700
                                                              Locations
Air NG                   WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Various Worldwide         Unspecified Minor               8,100                       8,100
                                                              Locations                 Construction.
       Total Military Construction, Air National Guard                                                                94,663             0        94,663
                         ..................................  ........................
AF Res                   GEORGIA                             Robins AFB                AFRC Consolidated              27,700                      27,700
                                                                                        Mission Complex, Ph I.
AF Res                   NORTH CAROLINA                      Seymour Johnson AFB       KC-135 Tanker Parking           9,800                       9,800
                                                                                        Apron Expansion.
AF Res                   TEXAS                               Fort Worth                EOD Facility...........         3,700                       3,700
AF Res                   WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Various Worldwide         Planning and Design....         6,892                       6,892
                                                              Locations
AF Res                   WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Various Worldwide         Unspecified Minor               1,400                       1,400
                                                              Locations                 Military Construction.
       Total Military Construction, Air Force Reserve                                                                 49,492             0        49,492
                         ..................................  ........................
FH Con Army              ILLINOIS                            Rock Island               Family Housing New             19,500                      19,500
                                                                                        Construction.
FH Con Army              KOREA                               Camp Walker               Family Housing New             57,800                      57,800
                                                                                        Construction.
FH Con Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Family Housing P & D...         1,309                       1,309
                                                              Locations
       Total Family Housing Construction, Army                                                                        78,609             0        78,609
                         ..................................  ........................
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Furnishings............        14,136                      14,136
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Leased Housing.........       112,504                     112,504
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Maintenance of Real            65,245                      65,245
                                                              Locations                 Property Facilities.
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Management Account.....        43,480                      43,480
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Management Account.....         3,117                       3,117
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Military Housing               20,000                      20,000
                                                              Locations                 Privitization
                                                                                        Initiative.
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Miscellaneous..........           700                         700
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Services...............         9,108                       9,108
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Army              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Utilities..............        82,686                      82,686
                                                              Locations
       Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Army                                                            350,976             0       350,976
                         ..................................  ........................
FH Ops AF                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Furnishings Account....        38,543                      38,543
                                                              Locations
FH Ops AF                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Housing Privatization..        40,761                      40,761
                                                              Locations
FH Ops AF                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Leasing................        43,651                      43,651
                                                              Locations
FH Ops AF                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Maintenance............        99,934                      99,934
                                                              Locations
FH Ops AF                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Management Account.....        47,834                      47,834
                                                              Locations
FH Ops AF                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Miscellaneous Account..         1,993                       1,993
                                                              Locations
FH Ops AF                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Services Account.......        12,709                      12,709
                                                              Locations
FH Ops AF                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Utilities Account......        42,322                      42,322
                                                              Locations
       Total Family Housing Construction, Air Force                                                                  327,747             0       327,747
                         ..................................  ........................
FH Con Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Design.................           472                         472
                                                              Locations
FH Con Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Improvements...........        15,940                      15,940
                                                              Locations
       Total Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps                                                       16,412             0        16,412
                         ..................................  ........................
FH Ops Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Furnishings Account....        17,881                      17,881
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Leasing................        65,999                      65,999
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Maintenance of Real            97,612                      97,612
                                                              Locations                 Property.
FH Ops Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Management Account.....        55,124                      55,124
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Miscellaneous Account..           366                         366
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Privatization Support          27,876                      27,876
                                                              Locations                 Costs.
FH Ops Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Services Account.......        18,079                      18,079
                                                              Locations
FH Ops Navy              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Utilities Account......        71,092                      71,092
                                                              Locations
       Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps                                           354,029             0       354,029
                         ..................................  ........................
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Furnishings Account....         3,362                       3,362
                                                              Locations
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Furnishings Account....            20                          20
                                                              Locations
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Furnishings Account....           746                         746
                                                              Locations
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Leasing................        11,179                      11,179
                                                              Locations
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Leasing................        42,083                      42,083
                                                              Locations
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Maintenance of Real             2,128                       2,128
                                                              Locations                 Property.
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Maintenance of Real               344                         344
                                                              Locations                 Property.
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Management Account.....           378                         378
                                                              Locations
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Services Account.......            31                          31
                                                              Locations
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Utilities Account......           170                         170
                                                              Locations
FH Ops DW                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Utilities Account......           659                         659
                                                              Locations
       Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide                                                     61,100             0        61,100
                         ..................................  ........................
FHIF                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Family Housing                  1,662                       1,662
                                                              Locations                 Improvement Fund.
       Total DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund                                                                       1,662             0         1,662
                         ..................................  ........................
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Base Realignment &        Base Realignment and           84,417                      84,417
                                                              Closure, Army             Closure.
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Base Realignment &        Base Realignment &             57,406                      57,406
                                                              Closure, Navy             Closure.
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     DoD BRAC Activities--          90,976                      90,976
                                                              Locations                 Air Force.
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     DON-100: Planing,               7,682                       7,682
                                                              Locations                 Design and Management.
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     DON-101: Various               21,416                      21,416
                                                              Locations                 Locations.
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     DON-138: NAS Brunswick,           904                         904
                                                              Locations                 ME.
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     DON-157: MCSA Kansas               40                          40
                                                              Locations                 City, MO.
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     DON-172: NWS Seal               6,066                       6,066
                                                              Locations                 Beach, Concord, CA.
BRAC                     WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     DON-84: JRB Willow              1,178                       1,178
                                                              Locations                 Grove & Cambria Reg AP.
       Total Base Realignment and Closure Account                                                                    270,085             0       270,085
                         ..................................  ........................
PYS                      WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     42 USC 3374............             0      -100,000      -100,000
                                                              Locations
PYS                      WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     Army...................             0       -79,577       -79,577
                                                              Locations
PYS                      WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     NATO Security                       0       -25,000       -25,000
                                                              Locations                 Investment Program.
       Total Prior Year Savings                                                                                            0      -204,577      -204,577
                         ..................................  ........................
GR                       WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED               Unspecified Worldwide     General Reductions.....             0       -69,000       -69,000
                                                              Locations
       Total General Reductions                                                                                            0       -69,000       -69,000
                         ..................................  ........................
      Total Military Construction                                                                                  6,557,447       -24,477     6,532,970
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
 SECURITY PROGRAMS
 


SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      House
                          Program                           FY 2015  Request    House Change       Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
  Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
  Appropriation Summary:
    Energy Programs
      Nuclear Energy......................................           104,000                             104,000
 
    Atomic Energy Defense Activities
      National nuclear security administration:
        Weapons activities................................         8,314,902         147,700           8,462,602
        Defense nuclear nonproliferation..................         1,555,156          10,000           1,565,156
        Naval reactors....................................         1,377,100          10,000           1,387,100
        Federal salaries and expenses.....................           410,842         -24,000             386,842
      Total, National nuclear security administration.....        11,658,000         143,700          11,801,700
 
      Environmental and other defense activities:
        Defense environmental cleanup.....................         5,327,538        -457,000           4,870,538
        Other defense activities..........................           753,000           5,300             758,300
      Total, Environmental & other defense activities.....         6,080,538        -451,700           5,628,838
    Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...............        17,738,538        -308,000          17,430,538
Total, Discretionary Funding..............................        17,842,538        -308,000          17,534,538
 
Nuclear Energy
  Idaho sitewide safeguards and security..................           104,000                             104,000
 
Weapons Activities
  Directed stockpile work
    Life extension programs
      B61 Life extension program..........................           643,000                             643,000
      W76 Life extension program..........................           259,168          14,600             273,768
      W88 Alt 370.........................................           165,400           1,200             166,600
      Cruise missile warhead life extension program.......             9,418           7,600              17,018
    Total, Life extension programs........................         1,076,986          23,400           1,100,386
 
    Stockpile systems
      B61 Stockpile systems...............................           109,615                             109,615
      W76 Stockpile systems...............................            45,728                              45,728
      W78 Stockpile systems...............................            62,703           3,700              66,403
      W80 Stockpile systems...............................            70,610                              70,610
      B83 Stockpile systems...............................            63,136                              63,136
      W87 Stockpile systems...............................            91,255                              91,255
      W88 Stockpile systems...............................            88,060                              88,060
    Total, Stockpile systems..............................           531,107           3,700             534,807
 
    Weapons dismantlement and disposition
      Operations and maintenance..........................            30,008                              30,008
 
    Stockpile services
      Production support..................................           350,942          12,300             363,242
      Research and development support....................            29,649                              29,649
      R&D certification and safety........................           201,479          11,000             212,479
      Management, technology, and production..............           241,805                             241,805
      Plutonium sustainment...............................           144,575          28,300             172,875
      Tritium readiness...................................           140,053                             140,053
    Total, Stockpile services.............................         1,108,503          51,600           1,160,103
  Total, Directed stockpile work..........................         2,746,604          78,700           2,825,304
 
  Campaigns:
    Science campaign
      Advanced certification..............................            58,747                              58,747
      Primary assessment technologies.....................           112,000                             112,000
      Dynamic materials properties........................           117,999                             117,999
      Advanced radiography................................            79,340                              79,340
      Secondary assessment technologies...................            88,344                              88,344
    Total, Science campaign...............................           456,430                             456,430
 
    Engineering campaign
      Enhanced surety.....................................            52,003           2,400              54,403
      Weapon systems engineering assessment technology....            20,832                              20,832
      Nuclear survivability...............................            25,371                              25,371
      Enhanced surveillance...............................            37,799           3,600              41,399
    Total, Engineering campaign...........................           136,005           6,000             142,005
 
    Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
     campaign
      Ignition............................................            77,994               0              77,994
      Support of other stockpile programs.................            23,598                              23,598
      Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support....            61,297                              61,297
      Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............             5,024                               5,024
      Joint program in high energy density laboratory                  9,100                               9,100
       plasmas............................................
      Facility operations and target production...........           335,882                             335,882
    Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield                512,895                             512,895
     campaign.............................................
 
    Advanced simulation and computing campaign............           610,108                             610,108
 
    Nonnuclear Readiness Campaign.........................           125,909                             125,909
  Total, Campaigns........................................         1,841,347           6,000           1,847,347
 
  Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
    Operations of facilities
    Kansas City Plant.....................................           125,000                             125,000
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory..............            71,000                              71,000
      Los Alamos National Laboratory......................           198,000                             198,000
      Nevada National Security Site.......................            89,000                              89,000
      Pantex..............................................            75,000                              75,000
      Sandia National Laboratory..........................           106,000                             106,000
      Savannah River Site.................................            81,000                              81,000
      Y-12 National security complex......................           151,000                             151,000
    Total, Operations of facilities.......................           896,000                             896,000
 
    Program readiness.....................................           136,700                             136,700
    Material recycle and recovery.........................           138,900                             138,900
    Containers............................................            26,000                              26,000
    Storage...............................................            40,800                              40,800
    Maintenance and repair of facilities..................           205,000          15,000             220,000
    Recapitalization......................................           209,321          39,000             248,321
  Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities....           756,721          54,000             810,721
 
    Construction:
      15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12..........             2,000                               2,000
      15-D-612 Emergency Operations Center, LLNL..........             2,000                               2,000
      15-D-611 Emergency Operations Center, SNL...........             4,000                               4,000
      15-D-301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX......            11,800                              11,800
      15-D-302, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL.            16,062                              16,062
      12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL.................             6,938                               6,938
      11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL...            10,000                              10,000
      07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility            15,000                              15,000
       upgrade project, LANL..............................
      06-D-141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities                335,000                             335,000
       Replacement Project Y-12...........................
    Total, Construction...................................           402,800                             402,800
  Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities.......         2,055,521          54,000           2,109,521
 
  Secure transportation asset
    Operations and equipment..............................           132,851                             132,851
    Program direction.....................................           100,962                             100,962
  Total, Secure transportation asset......................           233,813                             233,813
 
  Nuclear counterterrorism incident response..............           173,440           9,000             182,440
 
  Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs......            76,901                              76,901
 
  Site stewardship
    Environmental projects and operations.................            53,000                              53,000
    Nuclear materials integration.........................            16,218                              16,218
    Minority serving institution partnerships program.....            13,231                              13,231
  Total, Site stewardship.................................            82,449                              82,449
 
  Defense nuclear security
    Operations and maintenance............................           618,123                             618,123
  Total, Defense nuclear security.........................           618,123                             618,123
 
  Information technology and cybersecurity................           179,646                             179,646
 
  Legacy contractor pensions..............................           307,058                             307,058
Total, Weapons Activities.................................         8,314,902         147,700           8,462,602
 
 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
  Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
    Global threat reduction initiative....................           333,488          80,000             413,488
 
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
      Operations and maintenance..........................           360,808          70,000             430,808
 
    Nonproliferation and international security...........           141,359          36,400             177,759
 
    International material protection and cooperation.....           305,467        -176,400             129,067
 
    Fissile materials disposition
      U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition
        Operations and maintenance
          U.S. plutonium disposition......................            85,000                              85,000
          U.S. uranium disposition........................            25,000                              25,000
        Total, Operations and maintenance.................           110,000                             110,000
        Construction:
          99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility,            196,000               0             196,000
           Savannah River, SC.............................
          99-D-141-02 Waste Solidification Building,                   5,125                               5,125
           Savannah River, SC.............................
        Total, Construction...............................           201,125                             201,125
      Total, U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition...           311,125                             311,125
      Russian surplus fillile materials disposition
    Total, Fissile materials disposition..................           311,125                             311,125
  Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........         1,452,247          10,000           1,462,247
 
  Legacy contractor pensions..............................           102,909                             102,909
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...................         1,555,156          10,000           1,565,156
 
 
Naval Reactors
  Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............           412,380          10,000             422,380
  Naval reactors development..............................           425,700                             425,700
  Ohio replacement reactor systems development............           156,100                             156,100
  S8G Prototype refueling.................................           126,400                             126,400
  Program direction.......................................            46,600                              46,600
  Construction:
    15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3.............               400                                 400
    15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade.......................               600                                 600
    15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility..........             1,500                               1,500
    15-D-901 KS Central office building and prototype                 24,000                              24,000
     staff facility.......................................
    14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project,           141,100                             141,100
     NRF..................................................
    13-D-905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL.            14,420                              14,420
    13-D-904 KS Radiological work and storage building,               20,100                              20,100
     KSO..................................................
    10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL.....................             7,400                               7,400
     08-D-190 Expended Core Facility M-290 receiving/                    400                                 400
     discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID........
  Total, Construction.....................................           209,920                             209,920
Total, Naval Reactors.....................................         1,377,100          10,000           1,387,100
 
 
Federal Salaries And Expenses
  Program direction.......................................           410,842         -24,000             386,842
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................           410,842         -24,000             386,842
 
 
Defense Environmental Cleanup
  Closure sites:
    Closure sites administration..........................             4,889                               4,889
 
  Hanford site:
    River corridor and other cleanup operations...........           332,788                             332,788
    Central plateau remediation:
      Central plateau remediation.........................           474,292                             474,292
    Construction:
      15-D-401 Containerized sludge (Rl-0012).............            26,290                              26,290
    Total, Central plateau remediation....................           500,582                             500,582
    Richland community and regulatory support.............            14,701                              14,701
  Total, Hanford site.....................................           848,071                             848,071
 
  Idaho National Laboratory:
    Idaho cleanup and waste disposition...................           364,293                             364,293
    Idaho community and regulatory support................             2,910                               2,910
  Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................           367,203                             367,203
 
  NNSA sites
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................             1,366                               1,366
    Nevada................................................            64,851                              64,851
    Sandia National Laboratories..........................             2,801                               2,801
    Los Alamos National Laboratory........................           196,017                             196,017
    Construction:
      15-D-406 Hexavalent chromium D & D (Vl-Lanl-0030)...            28,600                              28,600
  Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites..................           293,635                             293,635
 
  Oak Ridge Reservation:
    OR Nuclear facility D & D
      OR Nuclear facility D & D...........................            73,155                              73,155
      Construction:
        14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility...             9,400                               9,400
    Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D......................            82,555                              82,555
 
    U233 Disposition Program..............................            41,626                              41,626
 
    OR cleanup and disposition:
      OR cleanup and disposition..........................            71,137                              71,137
      Construction:
        15-D-405--Sludge Buildout.........................             4,200                               4,200
    Total, OR cleanup and disposition.....................            75,337                              75,337
 
  OR reservation community and regulatory support.........             4,365                               4,365
     Solid waste stabilization and disposition, Oak Ridge              3,000                               3,000
     technology development...............................
  Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................           206,883                             206,883
 
  Office of River Protection:
    Waste treatment and immobilization plant
      01-D-416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction..........           575,000                             575,000
      01-D-16E Pretreatment facility......................           115,000                             115,000
    Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant.......           690,000                             690,000
 
    Tank farm activities
      Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition.           522,000                             522,000
      Construction:
        15-D-409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System,              23,000                              23,000
         Hanford..........................................
    Total, Tank farm activities...........................           545,000                             545,000
  Total, Office of River protection.......................         1,235,000                           1,235,000
 
  Savannah River sites:
    Savannah River risk management operations.............           416,276                             416,276
    SR community and regulatory support...................            11,013                              11,013
 
    Radioactive liquid tank waste:
      Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and                553,175                             553,175
       disposition........................................
      Construction:
        15-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #6..............            34,642                              34,642
        05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah            135,000                             135,000
         River............................................
      Total, Construction.................................           169,642                             169,642
    Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste..................           722,817                             722,817
  Total, Savannah River site..............................         1,150,106                           1,150,106
 
  Waste isolation pilot plant.............................           216,020                             216,020
 
  Program direction.......................................           280,784                             280,784
  Program support.........................................            14,979                              14,979
 
  Safeguards and Security:
    Oak Ridge Reservation.................................            16,382                              16,382
    Paducah...............................................             7,297                               7,297
    Portsmouth............................................             8,492                               8,492
    Richland/Hanford Site.................................            63,668                              63,668
    Savannah River Site...................................           132,196                             132,196
    Waste Isolation Pilot Project.........................             4,455                               4,455
    West Valley...........................................             1,471                               1,471
  Technology development..................................            13,007           6,000              19,007
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup...................         4,864,538           6,000           4,870,538
 
  Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................           463,000        -463,000                   0
 
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup......................         5,327,538        -457,000           4,870,538
 
 
Other Defense Activities
  Specialized security activities.........................           202,152           5,300             207,452
 
  Environment, health, safety and security
    Environment, health, safety and security..............           118,763                             118,763
    Program direction.....................................            62,235                              62,235
  Total, Environment, Health, safety and security.........           180,998                             180,998
 
  Independent enterprise assessments
    Independent enterprise assessments....................            24,068                              24,068
    Program direction.....................................            49,466                              49,466
  Total, Independent enterprise assessments...............            73,534                              73,534
 
  Office of Legacy Management
    Legacy management.....................................           158,639                             158,639
    Program direction.....................................            13,341                              13,341
  Total, Office of Legacy Management......................           171,980                             171,980
 
  Defense-related activities
  Defense related administrative support
    Chief financial officer...............................            46,877                              46,877
    Chief information officer.............................            71,959                              71,959
  Total, Defense related administrative support...........           118,836                             118,836
 
  Office of hearings and appeals..........................             5,500                               5,500
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................           753,000           5,300             758,300
Total, Other Defense Activities...........................           753,000           5,300             758,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

    The Department of Defense requested legislation, in 
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by 
the correspondence set out below:
                                                     April 1, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed 
legislation, titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015'', that the Department of Defense requests 
be enacted during the second session of the 113th Congress.
    The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is 
stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis.
    The Department is currently working with the Administration 
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department 
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the 
coming weeks.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Elizabeth King.
    Enclosure: As Stated
                                ------                                

                                                       May 5, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional 
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests 
be enacted during the second session of the 113th Congress. The 
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the 
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our 
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015''.
    The Department is currently working with the Administration 
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department 
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the 
coming weeks.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Elizabeth L. King.
    Enclosure: As Stated
                                ------                                


                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

        House of Representatives, Committee on Science, 
            Space, and Technology,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual 
understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This legislation 
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. However, in order 
to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, 
the committee waives consideration of the bill.
    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology takes this 
action only with the understanding that the committee's 
jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are 
in no way diminished or altered.
    The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
to any conference on this legislation and requests your support 
if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your 
including this letter in the Congressional Record during 
consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor. Thank you for 
your attention to these matters.
            Sincerely,
                                               Lamar Smith,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the 
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Natural Resources,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual 
understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This legislation 
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Natural Resources, including:
    Sec. 602. No fiscal year 2015 increase in basic pay for 
general and flag officers
    Sec. 611. One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and 
special pay authorities
    Sec. 2841. Land conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, 
La Jolla, California
    Sec. 2861, Memorial to the victims of the shooting attack 
at the Washington Navy Yard
    Sec. 2864, Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross 
National Memorial in Riverside, California
    Sec. 2865, Renaming site of Dayton Aviation Heritage 
National Historical Park, Ohio
    Sec. 2866, Manhattan Project National Historical Park
    Title 29, Subtitle A--Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada
    Sec. 2911, Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway 
Vehicle Recreation Area, California
    Sec. 2921, Elimination of termination date for public land 
withdrawals and reservations under Military Lands Withdrawal 
Act of 1999
    Title 29, Subtitle D--Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, 
California
    Title 29, Subtitle D--White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico
    Sec. xxx, National security considerations for inclusion of 
federal property on National Register of Historic Places or 
designation as National Historic Landmark under the National 
Historic Preservation Act
    To expedite floor consideration of this important 
legislation, and because of the extensive cooperation shown by 
you and your staff, the Committee will forego seeking a 
sequential referral of the bill. The Natural Resources 
Committee takes this action only with the understanding that 
the Committee's jurisdictional interests over this and similar 
legislation are in no way diminished or altered.
    The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests 
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would 
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 
Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor.
    Thank you for your attention to these matters.
            Sincerely,
                                              Doc Hastings,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its 
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
included in the committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual 
understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This legislation 
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, however in order to expedite 
floor consideration of this important legislation, the 
Committee waives consideration of the bill.
    The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs takes this action 
only with the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional 
interests over this and similar legislation are in no way 
diminished or altered.
    The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests 
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would 
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 
Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor. 
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
    With warm personal regards, I am
            Sincerely,
                                               Jeff Miller,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Jeff Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is not waiving its 
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
included in the committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual 
understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which contains 
substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative 
jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate the 
cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually agreeable text 
on numerous matters prior to your markup.
    Based on that cooperation and our associated 
understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a 
sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the 
bill text approved at your Committee markup. However, this 
decision in no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional 
interests of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any 
subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I request your 
support for the appointment of House Foreign Affairs conferees 
during any House-Senate conference on this legislation.
    Finally, I respectfully request that you include this 
letter and your response in your committee report on the bill 
and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 
4435 on the House floor.
            Sincerely,
                                           Edward R. Royce,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Edward R. Royce,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Foreign Affairs Committee has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
the Foreign Affairs Committee is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

        House of Representatives, Committee on 
            Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 4435, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as 
amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that 
fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
    However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor 
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. 
This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the 
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to 
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within 
the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the 
Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference 
committee named to consider such provisions.
    Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee 
report on H.R. 4435 and into the Congressional Record during 
consideration of the measure on the House floor.
            Sincerely,
                                              Bill Shuster,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the 
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its 
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
included in the committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on the Judiciary in 
matters being considered in H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
    Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4435 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do 
not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, 
is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral 
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
Judiciary Committee, and that a copy of this letter and your 
response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be 
included in the Committee Report and as part of the 
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the 
House.
    The Judiciary Committee also asks that you support our 
request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have 
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                             Bob Goodlatte,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

        House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight 
            and Government Reform,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill 
H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015. There are certain provisions in the legislation 
which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
    In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I 
am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential 
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
consideration of the bill the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform does not waive any future jurisdictional 
claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall 
within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the 
Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference 
committee which is named to consider such provisions.
    Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
4435 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of 
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative 
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and 
others between our respective committees.
            Sincerely,
                                              Darrell Issa,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in 
this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing 
a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

        House of Representatives, Committee on Education 
            and the Workforce,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
understanding with respect to H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. Thank you for 
consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
with regard to H.R. 4435 on those matters within the 
committee's jurisdiction.
    In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of 
H.R. 4435, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will 
forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only 
with the understanding this procedural route will not be 
construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest 
and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation 
and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of 
matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the 
future.
    I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a 
conference with the Senate. I also request you include our 
exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on 
H.R. 4435 and in the Congressional Record during consideration 
of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention 
to these matters.
            Sincerely,
                                                John Kline,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing 
a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on 
the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 4435, 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
    While the bill was referred to your Committee exclusively, 
there are several provisions that fall within the Rule X 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. However, 
so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for 
consideration, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will not 
request a sequential referral on the bill.
    This is done with our mutual understanding that the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its 
jurisdiction, will not be prejudiced with respect to the 
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on 
H.R. 4435 or similar legislation, and will be consulted and 
involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward. The 
Committee on Energy and Commerce also reserves the right to 
seek the appointment of conferees to any House-Senate 
conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests 
your support for such a request.
    Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter, 
confirming this understanding, and ask that a copy of our 
exchange of letters on this matter be included in the 
Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the 
House floor.
            Sincerely,
                                                Fred Upton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has 
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing 
a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is 
not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

        House of Representatives, Permanent Select 
            Committee on Intelligence,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of 
expediting the passage of H.R. 4435, the ``Fiscal Year 2015 
National Defense Authorization Bill,'' the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further consideration 
of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional interests in H.R. 
4435, including intelligence and intelligence-related 
authorizations and provisions contained in the bill.
    The Committee takes this action only with the understanding 
that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice 
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's 
jurisdictional interest over this bill or any similar bill and 
will not be considered as precedent for consideration of 
matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee in the 
future, including in connection with any subsequent 
consideration of the bill by the House. In addition, the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees 
on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction 
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this 
legislation.
    Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record 
during the House debate on H.R. 4435. I appreciate the 
constructive work between our committees on this matter and 
thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                               Mike Rogers,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Mike Rogers,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the 
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman McKeon: Thank you for the opportunity to 
review the relevant provisions of the text of H.R. 4435, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The 
Agriculture Committee has a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
H.R. 4435.
    I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this 
legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, 
accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 4435 from further 
consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with the 
understanding that by discharging the bill, the Committee on 
Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim on 
this or similar matters. Further, the Committee on Agriculture 
reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees, if it 
should become necessary.
    I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters 
into both the Congressional Record and the Committee Report 
during consideration of this measure on the House floor.
    Thank you for your courtesy in this matter, and I look 
forward to continued cooperation between our respective 
committees.
            Sincerely,
                                            Frank D. Lucas,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                --
------------

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Agriculture Committee has a valid 
jurisdictional claim to a provision in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
the Agriculture Committee is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                --
------------

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Small Business,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
bill H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. There are certain 
provisions in the legislation which fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business pursuant to 
Rule X(q) of the House of Representatives.
    In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed 
Services to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of 
this important bill, I am willing to waive the right of the 
Committee on Small Business to sequential referral. I do so 
with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the 
bill, the Committee on Small Business does not waive any future 
jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the 
bill which fall within its Rule X(q) jurisdiction, including 
future bills that the Committee on Armed Services will 
consider. I request that you urge the Speaker to appoint 
members of this Committee to any conference committee which is 
named to consider such provisions.
    Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
4435 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of 
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative 
spirit in which you have worked regarding this issue and others 
between our respective committees.
            Sincerely,
                                                Sam Graves,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                --
------------

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Sam Graves,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
the Committee on Small Business is not waiving its 
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
included in the committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                --
------------

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. McKeon: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 4435, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 
This legislation contains a provision requiring a strategy to 
prioritize U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region that is 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
    In order to expedite floor consideration of this important 
legislation, the Committee will waive consideration of the 
bill. The Committee takes this action only with the 
understanding that the Committee's jurisdictional interests 
over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or 
altered.
    The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests 
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would 
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 
Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor. 
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Dave Camp,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                --
------------

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has a valid 
jurisdictional claim to a provision in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
the Committee on Ways and Means is not waiving its 
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
included in the committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                --
------------

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Homeland Security,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to you regarding H.R. 4435, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2015. 
There are certain provisions of this legislation that fall 
within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland 
Security.
    In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed 
Services to proceed expeditiously to the House floor, I will 
not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 4435. However, I do so 
only with the mutual understanding that the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Homeland Security over matters contained in this 
or similar legislation is in no way diminished or altered. I 
further request that you urge the Speaker to name Members of 
this Committee to any conference committee that is named to 
consider such provisions.
    Finally, I request you include this letter and your 
response into the committee report on H.R. 4435 and into the 
Congressional Record. Thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                         Michael T. McCaul,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                --
------------

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015. I am most appreciative of your support and interest in 
this important legislation. Further, this exchange of letters 
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.

                              FISCAL DATA

    Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain 
annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2015 
and each of the following 5 fiscal years. The results of such 
efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate, which is 
included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House 
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:

         CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE

                                                      May 12, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending effects 
of H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as ordered reported by 
the House Committee on Armed Services on May 8, 2014. CBO's 
complete cost estimate for H.R. 4435, including discretionary 
costs, will be provided shortly.
    Based on legislative language for H.R. 4435, which was 
provided to CBO on May 9, 2014, CBO estimates that enacting 
this bill would decrease net direct spending by $1 million in 
2015, but increase such spending by $1 million over the 2015-
2024 period (see attached table). Because the bill would affect 
direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
    A provision to authorize special immigrant visas for 
certain Afghan allies would increase direct spending by $70 
million over that 10-year period. Those costs would be offset 
by a provision that would increase, by $70 million, receipts 
from sales of material from the National Defense Stockpile. The 
bill also would require the Secretary of Defense to award the 
Purple Heart to certain service members who were killed or 
wounded in attacks in the United States that were motivated or 
inspired by foreign terrorist organizations. Enacting that 
provision would increase military retirement payments to some 
of those awardees by a total of about $1 million over the 2015-
2024 period.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman, 
who can be reached at 226-2840.
            Sincerely,
                            Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director.

    PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT OF H.R. 4435, THE HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015, ON DIRECT
                                                                        SPENDING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024   2015-2019  2015-2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan Allies
    Estimated Budget Authority....................       1      10       9       8       7       7       7       7       7       7        35         70
    Estimated Outlays.............................       1      10       9       8       7       7       7       7       7       7        35         70
National Defense Stockpile
    Estimated Budget Authority....................      -2     -40     -20      -8       0       0       0       0       0       0       -70        -70
    Estimated Outlays.............................      -2     -40     -20      -8       0       0       0       0       0       0       -70        -70
Purple Heart Awards
    Estimated Budget Authority....................       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *         *          1
    Estimated Outlays.............................       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *         *          1
Total Changes in Direct Spending
    Estimated Budget Authority....................      -1     -30     -11       *       7       7       7       7       7       7       -35          1
    Estimated Outlays.............................      -1     -30     -11       *       7       7       7       7       7       7       -35         1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.

           STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344):
    (1) This legislation does not provide budget authority 
subject to an allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of 
Public Law 93-344;
    (2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included 
in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives contains CBO's projection 
of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget 
authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for 
fiscal year 2015 and for the ensuring 5 fiscal years; and
    (3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget 
authority for assistance to state and local governments by this 
measure at the time that this report was filed.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget 
Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the 
requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the 
committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill.

                          ADVISORY OF EARMARKS

    The committee finds that H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as reported, does not 
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                           OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from 
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the 
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are 
reflected in the body of this report.

                GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of 
H.R. 4435 is to meet the national security needs of a nation at 
war while preparing our warfighters for the threats of tomorrow 
wherever and whenever they might emerge. This legislation would 
meet that goal while balancing the responsibilities of fiscal 
stewardship incumbent upon Congress in a time of economic 
stress. Only by providing for the common defense in an 
efficient, fiscally responsible manner can the nation address 
our national security challenges.
    The bill would sustain equipment and weapon systems vital 
to the success of our service men and women while taking steps 
to provide them more efficiently. As discussed elsewhere in 
this report, the committee took steps to promote competition 
and to provide authorities to the Department of Defense to 
procure systems more cost-effectively.
    The committee continues to reiterate the need for fiscal 
accountability and transparency. Elsewhere in this Act, the 
committee would establish an independent advisory panel on 
Department of Defense audit readiness. The advisory panel would 
actively monitor the Department of Defense's audit readiness 
and audit work and to report to Congress on problems that need 
to be resolved with the intention to shed light on the best, 
most efficient path forward to meet the 2017 and 2019 deadlines 
relating to auditability.
    In keeping with the committee's intent to reduce 
unnecessary bureaucracy, the bill would also direct the 
Secretary of Defense to report on consolidating the number of 
combatant commands and on combining combatant command back 
office functions to achieve greater efficiencies and cost 
savings. The committee would also task the Comptroller General 
of the United States to assess the Department of Defense's 
headquarter reduction efforts, building off the Comptroller 
General's previous work conducted for the committee on 
examining growth in defense headquarters.
    The committee has taken significant steps in the past to 
increase transparency with regard to services contracting. The 
bill would extend these efforts, encouraging the Secretary of 
Defense to improve data collection for services contracting and 
conduct better analysis of the data to identify waste. The 
committee would also require the Government Accountability 
Office to report on opportunities to improve the services 
contract processes.
    The committee supports efforts to drive unnecessary cost 
from the development, test, fielding and sustainment of weapon 
systems. While much attention has been paid to the development 
of systems, less has been paid on operational testing. The bill 
would mandate that the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation consider the potential for increase in program cost 
estimates or delays in schedule estimates in the implementation 
of policies, procedures, and activities related to operational 
test and evaluation.
    On the battlefield, the committee would expand authorities 
aimed at combating contracting with the enemy, to ensure 
taxpayer dollars are not inadvertently going to opposing 
forces. This measure would expand efforts that have worked well 
within U.S. Central Command.
    The bill also would examine and revise the Quadrennial 
Defense Review requirement and the strategic planning process 
in order to provide a solid basis for future defense strategic 
reviews. The committee believes that proper strategic planning, 
particularly when conducted regularly and within authorized 
frameworks, can reduce waste while protecting the joint 
warfighting capability of the Department of Defense from 
arbitrary cuts.

                     STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

    Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this 
legislation contains no Federal mandates with respect to state, 
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private 
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no Federal 
intergovernmental mandates.

                  FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    Consistent with the requirements of section 5(b) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the committee finds that the 
functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized in the 
bill are not currently being nor could they be performed by one 
or more agencies, an advisory committee already in existence or 
by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee.

                APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The committee finds that this legislation does not relate 
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    No provision of H.R. 4435 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

    The committee estimates that H.R. 4435 requires no directed 
rule makings.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with 
respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 4435. The 
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
    The committee ordered H.R. 4435 to be reported to the House 
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 61-0, a quorum 
being present.

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 1


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Shea-Porter amendment, Log 64.
    Description: Requires assigning a new DOD work requirement 
to military or civilian personnel, or a contractor based on 
determining which workforce can perform the work in the most 
appropriate and cost-efficient manner, excluding inherently 
governmental, critical, or like functions.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Smith.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x                                       ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x                                       ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x                                       ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x                                       ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x                                       ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x                                       ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  37        24        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 2


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Johnson amendment, Log 197r1.
    Description: Add direct solar to the Department's list of 
qualified renewable energy technologies for the purpose of 
meeting the statutory 25% renewable energy target.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Smith.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Larsen......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Cooper......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  ........  x         ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Castro......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Enyart......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x                                       ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  11        50        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 3


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Conaway amendment, Log 207.
    Description: Exempts DOD from Section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
    Wednesday: May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Smith.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Brady.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Miller....................  x         ........  ..........  Mrs. Davis......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Langevin....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Larsen......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Cooper......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Turner....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Courtney....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Franks....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Speier......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Barber......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Carson......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Maffei......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  ........  x         ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Castro......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Heck......................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Peters......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Enyart......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Veasey......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  ........  x         ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  x         ........                                ........  ........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  33        28        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 4


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Conaway amendment, Log 208r1.
    Description: SecDef may not enter into a contract to 
refurbish or construct a biofuel facility unless authorized by 
law.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Smith.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Brady.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Miller....................  x         ........  ..........  Mrs. Davis......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Langevin....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Larsen......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Cooper......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Turner....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Courtney....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Franks....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Speier......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Barber......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Carson......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Maffei......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  ........  x         ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Castro......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Heck......................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Peters......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Enyart......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Veasey......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  ........  x         ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  x         ........                                ........  ........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  32        29        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 5


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Shea-Porter amendment, Log 66.
    Description: Strike subtitle C of title 29, relating to 
Elimination of Termination Date for Public Land Withdrawals and 
Reservations Under Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. Smith.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  28        32        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 6


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Sanchez amendment, Log 232.
    Description: Decreasing federal salaries and expenses 
program direction by $20.0M and increasing Weapons 
Dismantlement and Disposition O&M by $20.0M. Directs a briefing 
on dismantling nuclear weapons.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Smith.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  24        34        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 7


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Rigell amendment, Log 14.
    Description: Establishes an eighth exemption to the 
Services Contract Act of 1965 for military exchanges and 
military Morale, Welfare and Recreation activities.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Smith.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Brady.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Miller....................  x         ........  ..........  Mrs. Davis......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Langevin....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Larsen......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Cooper......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Turner....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Courtney....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Franks....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Speier......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Barber......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Carson......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Maffei......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  ........  x         ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Castro......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Heck......................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Enyart......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Veasey......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  ........  x         ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  x         ........                                ........  ........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  28        34        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 8


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Hunter amendment, Log 201r1.
    Description: Prohibits the SecDef and Service Secretaries 
from implementing any policy that restricts certain sales in 
exchanges or commissaries already in inventory as of January 1, 
2014.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Smith.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  x         ........  ..........  Mrs. Davis......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Langevin....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Enyart......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  x         ........                                ........  ........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  53        9         0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                          roll call vote no. 9


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Speier amendment, Log 264.
    Description: Gives the authority of whether to prosecute 
all serious non military offenses to the Chief Prosecutor of 
the respective service. The amendment also requires that an 0-6 
JAG or higher convenes the court martial.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Smith.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Larsen......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Cooper......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  ........  x         ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Castro......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  13        49        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                         roll call vote no. 10


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Speier amendment, Log 125r2.
    Description: This amendment gives the authority of whether 
to prosecute a sexual assault-related offense to the Chief 
Prosecutor of the respective service. The amendment also 
requires that an O-6 JAG or higher convenes the court-martial.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Smith.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  28        34        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                         roll call vote no. 11


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Barber amendment, Log 239r2.
    Description: Sets up a GAO report on Close Air Support 
capability airframes in the USAF. Authorizes funding for FY15 
operations, maintenance, and upgrades of A-10 fleet.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Smith.......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Larsen......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  41        20        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                         roll call vote no. 12


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Peters amendment, Log 266.
    Description: Increase funding for MQ-9 (section 4101 - 
Aircraft Procurment, Air Force) by $120.0 million with an 
offset from MOX Fuel Fabrication facility, Savananah River, SC.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Smith.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  x         ........  ..........  Mrs. Davis......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  32        29        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                         roll call vote no. 13


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Smith amendment, Log 88.
    Description: Strike section 1032 and 1033.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Smith.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Barber......  ........  x         ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  ........  x         ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  23        38        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                         roll call vote no. 14


                               h.r. 4435

    On agreeing to the Johnson amendment, Log 187r1.
    Description: Requires a report on potential threats to the 
personnel of United States Naval Forces Central Command and the 
United States Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Smith.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  ........  x         ..........  Mrs. Davis......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  ........  x         ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  ........  x         ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  ........  x         ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  29        32        0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      committee on armed services


                             113th Congress


                         roll call vote no. 15


                               h.r. 4435

    Description: On motion by Mr. Thornberry to report the bill 
H.R. 4435, as amended, favorably to the House, with a 
recommendation that it do pass.
    Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                 Aye       No       Present        Member          Aye       No       Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Smith.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Thornberry................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Sanchez.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Jones.....................  ........  ........  ..........  Mr. McIntyre....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Forbes....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Brady.......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Miller....................  x         ........  ..........  Mrs. Davis......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wilson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Langevin....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. LoBiondo..................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Larsen......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Bishop....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Cooper......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Turner....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Bordallo....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Kline.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Courtney....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rogers....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Loebsack....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Franks....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Tsongas.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Shuster...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Garamendi...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Conaway...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Johnson.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Hanabusa....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Wittman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Speier......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Hunter....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Barber......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Fleming...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Carson......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Coffman...................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Shea-Porter.  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Rigell....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Maffei......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Gibson....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Kilmer......  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Hartzler.................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Castro......  x         ........  ..........
Dr. Heck......................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Duckworth...  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Runyan....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Peters......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Scott.....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Enyart......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Palazzo...................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Gallego.....  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Brooks....................  x         ........  ..........  Mr. Veasey......  x         ........  ..........
Mr. Nugent....................  x         ........  ..........  Ms. Gabbard.....  x         ........  ..........
Mrs. Noem.....................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Cook......................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Bridenstine...............  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Dr. Wenstrup..................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mrs. Walorski.................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
Mr. Byrne.....................  x         ........  ..........                    ........  ........  ..........
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:.........  61        0         0                             ........  ........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    The committee has taken steps to make available the 
analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as 
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as 
soon as possible.

                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF LORETTA SANCHEZ

    I would like to clarify the report language related to 
Section 3121 related to Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
Non-Proliferation Activities Between the United States and the 
Russian Federation, which may be misleading about the status of 
US-Russian cooperation. As I understand, the Secretary of 
Energy has suspended certain nuclear cooperation with Russia in 
the context of the on-going situation with Ukraine and the 
Department of Energy is conducting an ongoing review of all 
Russian-related activities. However, critical bilateral nuclear 
nonproliferation activities are continuing in a number of key 
areas.
    I believe effective cooperation with Russia remains 
necessary to effectively address the threat posed by vulnerable 
fissile material, and would like to note the important progress 
made toward securing and eliminating and securing highly-
enriched uranium in Russia. Nuclear nonproliferation efforts 
that eliminate or secure this material reduce the risk of 
nuclear terrorism and strengthen US security. I encourage the 
Department of Energy to conduct a careful review of its 
programs with Russia and look forward to status updates of 
these programs.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.

             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN GARAMENDI

    I congratulate the Chairman on the passage of the committee 
mark for the 53rd National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015, his final one. I deeply appreciated working with my 
colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee in preparing 
the committee mark that provides for a smart and strong 
defense. However, there are several areas of concern that I 
have for this critically important piece of legislation.
    Despite these reservations, I supported the overall bill 
because of the bipartisan effort of this committee to address a 
number of issues vital to national security. I commend the 
committee's consensus to limit the retirement of both the U-2 
and KC-10 aircraft until the Department of Defense is able to 
adequately report to Congress that it can maintain the same 
level of capability following these divestitures. In addition, 
I am pleased that the committee acknowledged and addressed the 
need for increased oversight of Department of Defense funds 
utilized for Afghan contract projects and security forces 
funding. I applaud the committee for adopting my amendments 
calling for the Department of Defense to provide briefings to 
Congress on future Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) and the 
justification on the requirement for increased plutonium pit 
production capacity. Further discussion and oversight on both 
of these strategic topics are especially important in this time 
of fiscal austerity. Finally, I am pleased the committee shares 
my concern with necessity to combat wildlife trafficking 
through the strengthening of partnerships with international 
partners, local communities, and NGOs in conjunction with the 
existing defense and law enforcement construct.
    However, this bill continues to significantly expand our 
already excessive nuclear arsenal and still includes wasteful 
spending on projects such as the over-budget MOX facilities at 
the Savannah River site. These are funds the Department of 
Energy itself has specifically said it does not need. Moreover, 
the committee once again chose to avoid an informed discussion 
on the scale of the current nuclear arsenal or the rationale 
for the forward deployment of B-61s in Europe. This issue 
remains increasingly necessary for this committee to address, 
especially in this time of fiscal austerity where I believe our 
resources could be better spent on more essential programs. 
Finally, this bill calls for $79 billion in Overseas 
Contingency Operations funding, with a substantial portion 
going towards continuing military operations in Afghanistan. 
However, it once again fails to address or even question 
America's continued military involvement in Afghanistan. In 
doing so, the committee has failed to fulfill one of its most 
basic responsibilities. Congress must debate and ultimately 
decide together with the President what America's role is in 
Afghanistan. I am hopeful that such a debate will be allowed 
when the NDAA comes to the floor of the House, where amendments 
can force a vote on this critical issue.
    I am confident that through the Floor amendment and 
conference processes, we can find ways to address these 
concerns and shape the current draft legislation into a bill 
that is even more consistent with American values and that 
moves us beyond both the Cold War and the wars of the last 
decade. As the representative for service members at Travis Air 
Force Base, in Fairfield, California, which carries out a 
critical air mobility mission, and Beale Air Force Base near 
Marysville, which conducts a vital Intelligence, Surveillance, 
and Reconnaissance mission, I will continue to advocate for 
investing in the technologies and military capabilities that 
are effective against 21st century threats.
                                            John Garamendi.

             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE RON BARBER

    I strongly disagree with Tactical Air and Land 
Subcommittee's item of special interest regarding the planned 
retirement of the A-10 Thunderbolt by the Air Force because it 
fails to consider the most important aspect of the A-10's 
mission, Close Air Support (CAS).
    The Air Force's proposal to divest the A-10 fleet beginning 
in fiscal year 2015 will create a dangerous gap in close air 
support that would negatively impact ground troops in future 
combat operations.
    The Warthog represents a proven aircraft of unmatched 
survivability, maneuverability, and lethal armaments that is 
only surpassed by the deeply-ingrained close air support 
culture of its pilots. No other fixed-wing close air support 
assets are as proficient as the A-10 in conducting visual 
support operations below 1000 foot ceilings while being able to 
effectively target the enemy.
    Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrates the 
A-10s well-documented capability to operate in rugged 
environments with low visibility while still providing 
effective close air support. However, the Air Force would argue 
that other platforms in the Air Force inventory can replace the 
CAS eapabilities of the A-10.
    The F-15, F-16, B-1, and B-52 are incredibly effective 
aircraft that are important components of the Air Force 
inventory, yet none of these platforms can fully replace the 
capabilities and focus of the A-10 in many CAS situations. The 
A-10's low altitudes, slow flying speeds, and armored hull 
allow it to be more intimately involved on the battlefield than 
other faster, lighter, and higher altitude flying fighters. 
This closer communication and relationship with troops engaged 
in combat make the A-10's close air support more accurate and 
lethal, on top of the psychological effects on the enemy by a 
mere fly-by of the Warthog.
    While I commend the Chairman and the committee for rightly 
recognizing the risk involved by this planned reduction in 
fighter aircraft capacity, keeping the A-10 aircraft in Type-
1000 storage is simply divestment of the aircraft by another 
name. Further, the institutional knowledge and deeply ingrained 
CAS expertise would be lost and could not be quickly regained 
when we are engaged in combat again.
                                                Ron Barber.

                                  
