[Senate Report 113-176]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-176
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 402
CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2015
R E P O R T
[to accompany s. 2410]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
June 2, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
113th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
113-176
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 402
CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2015
R E P O R T
[to accompany s. 2410]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
June 2, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
?
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MIKE LEE, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia TED CRUZ, Texas
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
Peter K. Levine, Staff Director
John A. Bonsell, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview....................................... 2
Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget
authority implication.................................. 4
Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)................... 5
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations................. 7
Title I--Procurement............................................. 7
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 7
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 7
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 7
Airborne electronic attack capabilities (sec. 121)....... 7
Report on test evaluation master plan for Littoral Combat
Ship seaframes and mission modules (sec. 122).......... 8
Authority to transfer certain funds for refueling of
aircraft carrier and construction of amphibious ship
(sec. 123)............................................. 8
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 9
Prohibition on retirement of MQ-1 Predator aircraft (sec.
131)................................................... 9
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Air
Force aircraft (sec. 132).............................. 9
Temporary limitation on availability of funds for
transfer of Air Force C-130H and C-130J aircraft (sec.
133)................................................... 9
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of A-
10 aircraft (sec. 134)................................. 10
Limitation on transfer of KC-135 tankers (sec. 135)...... 10
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of
Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft
(sec. 136)............................................. 11
Report on status of air-launched cruise missile
capabilities (sec. 137)................................ 11
Report on C-130 aircraft (sec. 138)...................... 11
Report on status of F-16 aircraft (sec. 139)............. 12
Report on options to modernize or replace the T-1A
aircraft (sec. 140).................................... 12
Budget Items................................................. 13
Army..................................................... 13
Light Utility Helicopter............................. 13
UH-60 Black Hawk M model............................. 13
Common Missile Warning System........................ 13
Bradley program modifications........................ 14
Improved recovery vehicle............................ 14
Joint assault bridge................................. 14
M1 Abrams tank modifications......................... 14
Carbine.............................................. 14
Modular handgun reduction............................ 15
40mm reduction....................................... 15
Precision Guidance Kit reduction..................... 15
Warfighter Information Network--Tactical, increment 2 15
Joint tactical radio system.......................... 15
Mid-tier Networking Vehicular Radio.................. 15
Family of weapon sights.............................. 16
Joint Battle Command--Platform....................... 16
Counterfire radars................................... 16
Army information technology.......................... 16
Modification of in-service equipment................. 17
Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund................... 17
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund........ 17
Navy..................................................... 17
EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic
System............................................. 17
Aircraft spares and repair parts..................... 18
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests............... 18
Tomahawk............................................. 18
Navy enterprise information technology............... 19
Power equipment assorted............................. 19
Air Force................................................ 19
RQ-4................................................. 19
MQ-9................................................. 19
C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program.. 20
U-2.................................................. 20
C-130 aircraft modifications......................... 21
C-130 engines........................................ 21
Lynx synthetic aperture radar........................ 22
Small diameter bomb.................................. 22
General purpose bombs................................ 22
Base information transportation infrastructure
transfer........................................... 22
Procurement of additional ICBM training equipment.... 23
Defense-wide............................................. 23
MC-12 aircraft....................................... 23
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle......................... 23
Items of Special Interest.................................... 24
Air Force KC-46A Pegasus procurement..................... 24
Armored vehicle transmission industrial base............. 24
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense.. 25
Combatant command intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance requirements............................ 25
Commercial aircraft used by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.............................................. 26
Comptroller General of the United States review relating
to remotely piloted aircraft........................... 26
Distributed mission operations........................... 27
Ejection seats........................................... 28
Enhanced position location reporting system.............. 28
Family of medium tactical vehicles....................... 28
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle............................. 29
Joint Strike Fighter software development................ 29
Light weight cartridge case and ammunition development... 29
Lightweight robots....................................... 29
MH-60R helicopters....................................... 30
Modular handgun.......................................... 31
Report on the Navy's shipbuilding industrial base........ 31
RQ-21 unmanned aerial systems............................ 32
Solid state radar upgrades............................... 32
Technical study and business case analysis of body armor
plates................................................. 33
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............ 35
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 35
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)............... 35
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 35
Modification of authority for prizes for advanced
technology achievements (sec. 211)..................... 35
Modification of Manufacturing Technology Program (sec.
212)................................................... 35
Limitation on retirement of Joint Surveillance and Target
Attack Radar Systems aircraft (sec. 213)............... 36
Limitation on significant modifications of Army test and
evaluation capabilities (sec. 214)..................... 37
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 37
Study and reports on the technological superiority of the
United States military (sec. 221)...................... 37
Reduction in frequency of reporting by Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering (sec. 222) 37
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 38
Pilot program on assignment to Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency of private sector personnel with
critical research and development expertise (sec. 231). 38
Pilot program on enhancement of preparation of dependents
of members of Armed Forces for careers in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (sec. 232).... 38
Modification to requirement for contractor cost-sharing
in pilot program to include technology protection
features during research and development of certain
defense systems (sec. 233)............................. 39
Budget Items................................................. 39
University research initiatives.......................... 39
Indirect fire protection capability...................... 40
Infantry support weapons................................. 40
Kwajalein Atoll Reagan Test Site space situational
awareness operations support........................... 40
Marine Corps assault vehicles............................ 41
Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development........ 41
Integrated Personnel and Pay System...................... 42
F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability
System................................................. 42
Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload.................... 42
Network Centric Collaborative Targeting.................. 42
Logistics information technology......................... 44
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs....... 44
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education for military children........................ 45
Historically black colleges and universities and minority
serving institutions................................... 46
Applied research for the advancement of science and
technology............................................. 46
Office of the Secretary of Defense Cyber Security
Research............................................... 47
Foreign technology testing............................... 47
Science and technology analytic assessments.............. 47
Concept and technology demonstrations.................... 47
Advanced sensor applications program..................... 48
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system............... 48
Ground-based Midcourse Defense reliability and
maintenance funding.................................... 48
Funding for Iron Dome and U.S.-Israeli cooperative
missile defense programs............................... 49
Corrosion control and prevention funding increase........ 49
Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program 50
Chemical and Biological Defense Program under-execution.. 51
Combatant Command exercise engagement and training
transformation funding decrease........................ 52
Sharkseer zero-day cybersecurity program................. 52
Defense Information Systems Agency cybersecurity research
and development........................................ 53
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle............................. 53
Items of Special Interest.................................... 54
Advanced training technologies........................... 54
Air Force Office of Scientific Research.................. 54
Airborne signals intelligence enterprise................. 55
Anti-submarine warfare research and development.......... 56
Cargo unmanned aerial system............................. 56
Clear technical communications........................... 56
Combat rescue helicopter................................. 57
EC-130H Compass Call aircraft............................ 57
Electronic warfare threat emitters....................... 58
Improved turbine engine program.......................... 58
Inter-agency coordination on medical countermeasures
development............................................ 59
National Security Agency cybersecurity research and
development............................................ 59
Supporting commercialization of defense laboratory
technologies........................................... 60
Technology transition of successful research initiatives. 60
Unmanned underwater vehicles and the public shipyards.... 61
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 63
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 63
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)............... 63
Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment....................... 63
Method of funding for cooperative agreements under the
Sikes Act (sec. 311)................................... 63
Environmental Restoration at former Naval Air Station,
Chincoteague, Virginia (sec. 312)...................... 63
Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of
drop-in fuels (sec. 313)............................... 64
Study on implementation of requirements for consideration
of fuel logistics support requirements in planning,
requirements development, and acquisition processes
(sec. 314)............................................. 64
Comptroller General study of Department of Defense
research and development projects and investments to
increase energy security and meet energy goals
requirements (sec. 315)................................ 64
Decontamination of a portion of former bombardment area
on island of Culebra, Puerto Rico (sec. 316)........... 65
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 65
Modification of annual reporting requirement related to
prepositioning of materiel and equipment (sec. 321).... 65
Modification of quarterly readiness reporting requirement
(sec. 322)............................................. 65
Elimination of authority to abolish arsenals (sec. 323).. 66
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 66
Repeal of annual report on Department of Defense
operation and financial support for military museums
(sec. 331)............................................. 66
Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority.......... 66
Limitation on MC-12 aircraft transfer to United States
Special Operations Command (sec. 341).................. 66
Limitation on establishment of regional Special
Operations Forces Coordination Centers (sec. 342)...... 67
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 68
Repeal of authority relating to use of military
installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet contractors
(sec. 351)............................................. 68
Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility
uniforms (sec. 352).................................... 68
Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas (sec. 353)... 69
Budget Items................................................. 69
Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities
increases.............................................. 69
Facilities Sustainment................................... 70
Foreign currency fluctuation reductions.................. 70
Projected overstatement for Army civilian personnel...... 71
Undistributed travel reductions.......................... 71
Army National Guard readiness funding increase........... 71
Army National Guard advertising reduction................ 71
Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases............. 72
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests................... 72
Aircraft carrier defueling planning funds................ 72
Marine Corps unfunded priorities increase................ 72
Marine Corps tuition assistance.......................... 73
Museum reduction......................................... 73
RC-135 Rivet Joint....................................... 73
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support reduction.... 73
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command...................... 73
United States Pacific Command unfunded priorities
increases.............................................. 74
U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region. 74
Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers.. 74
U.S. Special Operations Command unfunded readiness
requirements........................................... 74
Department of Defense STARBASE program................... 75
Procurement technical assistance program................. 75
Defense Security Cooperation Agency...................... 75
Funding for impact aid................................... 76
Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request.. 76
Defense-wide funding decrease for 2015 base realignment
and closure support.................................... 76
Department of Defense rewards program reduction.......... 76
Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
support to United States Africa Command................ 76
Defense Clandestine Service.............................. 77
Operational support to the Defense Clandestine Service... 77
Review of operation of certain ships during Vietnam era.. 77
Support for international sporting competitions.......... 77
Items of Special Interest.................................... 78
Acoustic mixing.......................................... 78
Active and Reserve funding efficiencies for training..... 78
Additive manufacturing................................... 79
Afghanistan retrograde costs............................. 79
Air tactical training.................................... 80
Army and Marine Corps equipment reset.................... 80
Army Emergency Management Program........................ 81
Availability of funds for readiness...................... 81
Budget execution for Kwajalein Atoll..................... 81
Category I ammunition items.............................. 81
Coal-to-liquid report.................................... 82
Combatant Command Support Agent accounting............... 82
Comptroller General of the United States report on the
Department of the Army actions to determine the
appropriate structure of the Army...................... 83
Comptroller General review of readiness.................. 83
Continued Defense-wide and interagency collaboration in
the military working dog program....................... 84
Depot capital investment program......................... 85
Enhanced visibility for credentialing and installation
access programs and systems............................ 85
Humanitarian Demining Training Center.................... 85
Improving energy efficiency and performance of military
platforms.............................................. 86
Incentivizing alternative fuel and fuel cell vehicle
refueling stations..................................... 86
Jungle training.......................................... 87
Management of conventional ammunition inventory.......... 87
Marine Corps Prepositioning Program--Norway.............. 88
Measuring Department of Defense use of commercial cloud
computing capabilities and services.................... 89
Mission-critical electricity infrastructure adoption of
National Institute of Standards and Technology Cyber
Security Framework..................................... 89
Multi-modal retrograde contracts......................... 91
Navy fire control radar and replacement.................. 91
Network upgrades to the Kwajalein Garrison............... 92
Operational assessment of the Defense Readiness Reporting
System................................................. 93
Operational energy benefits.............................. 93
Soldier equipment modernization program.................. 94
Strategic military infrastructure to support operation
plans.................................................. 95
Stryker sustainment...................................... 95
Training for the Air Force weather program............... 96
Use of power purchase agreements to meet requirements for
military installations................................. 96
War reserve stocks....................................... 97
Warrior power executive agent............................ 98
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 99
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 99
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 99
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 99
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 99
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves (sec. 412)................................ 99
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 100
Fiscal year 2015 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 100
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 415)......... 100
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 101
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 101
Budget Item.................................................. 101
Military personnel funding changes....................... 101
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 103
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 103
Authority for three-month deferral of retirement for
officers selected for selective early retirement (sec.
501)................................................... 103
Repeal of limits on percentage of officers who may be
recommended for discharge during a fiscal year under
enhanced selective discharge authority (sec. 502)...... 103
Elimination of requirement that a qualified aviator or
naval flight officer be in command of an inactivated
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier before decommissioning
(sec. 503)............................................. 103
Authority to limit consideration for early retirement by
selective retirement boards to particular warrant
officer year groups and specialties (sec. 504)......... 103
Repeal of requirement for submittal to Congress of annual
reports on joint officer management and promotion
policy objectives for joint officers (sec. 505)........ 103
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 104
Retention on reserve active-status list following
nonselection for promotion of certain health
professions officers and first lieutenants and
lieutenants (junior grade) pursuing baccalaureate
degrees (sec. 511)..................................... 104
Database on military technician positions (sec. 512)..... 104
Improved consistency in suicide prevention and resilience
program for the reserve components of the Armed Forces
(sec. 513)............................................. 104
Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve
(sec. 514)............................................. 105
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 105
Enhancement of participation of mental health
professionals in boards for correction of military
records and boards for review of discharge or dismissal
of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 521).............. 105
Extension of authority to conduct programs on career
flexibility to enhance retention of members of the
Armed Forces (sec. 522)................................ 105
Sense of Senate on validated gender-neutral occupational
standards for all military occupations (sec. 523)...... 106
Comptroller General of the United States report on impact
of certain mental and physical trauma on discharges
from military service for misconduct (sec. 524)........ 106
Sense of Senate on upgrade of characterization of
discharge of certain Vietnam era members of the Armed
Forces (sec. 525)...................................... 106
Subtitle D--Member Education and Training.................... 107
Enhancement of authority for members of the Armed Forces
to obtain professional credentials (sec. 531).......... 107
Authority for Joint Special Operations University to
award degrees (sec. 532)............................... 107
Enhancement of information provided to members of the
Armed Forces and veterans regarding use of Post-9/11
Educational Assistance and Federal financial aid
through Transition Assistance Program (sec. 533)....... 107
Duration of foreign and cultural exchange activities at
military service academies (sec. 534).................. 108
Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters............... 108
Ordering of depositions under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (sec. 541)............................ 108
Modification of Rule 513 of the Military Rules of
Evidence, relating to the privilege against disclosure
of communications between psychotherapists and patients
(sec. 542)............................................. 108
Enhancement of victims' rights to be heard through
counsel in connection with prosecution of certain sex-
related offenses (sec. 543)............................ 109
Eligibility of members of the reserve components of the
Armed Forces for assistance of Special Victims' Counsel
(sec. 544)............................................. 109
Additional enhancements of military department actions on
sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 545)...... 109
Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sex-
related offenses for trial by court-martial if
requested by chief prosecutor (sec. 546)............... 110
Modification of Department of Defense policy on retention
of evidence in a sexual assault case to permit return
of personal property upon completion of related
proceedings (sec. 547)................................. 110
Inclusion of information on assaults in the Defense
Sexual Assault Incident Database (sec. 548)............ 110
Technical revisions and clarifications of certain
provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 relating to the military justice
system (sec. 549)...................................... 111
Applicability of sexual assault prevention and response
and related military justice enhancements to military
service academies (sec. 550)........................... 111
Analysis and assessment of disposition of most serious
offenses identified in unrestricted reports on sexual
assaults in annual reports on sexual assaults in the
Armed Forces (sec. 551)................................ 111
Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution,
and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec.
552)................................................... 112
Collaboration between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Justice in efforts to prevent and respond
to sexual assault (sec. 553)........................... 112
Modification of term of judges of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 554)............. 112
Report on review of Office of Diversity Management and
Equal Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases (sec.
555)................................................... 112
Repeal of obsolete requirement to develop comprehensive
management plan to address deficiencies in data
captured in the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System
(sec. 556)............................................. 112
Subtitle F--Decorations and Award............................ 113
Medals for members of the Armed Forces and civilian
employees of the Department of Defense who were killed
or wounded in an attack by a foreign terrorist
organization (sec. 561)................................ 113
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters.......................................... 113
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 571)................................... 113
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
572)................................................... 113
Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012
(sec. 573)............................................. 113
Authority to employ non-United States citizens as
teachers in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents'
School system (sec. 574)............................... 113
Inclusion of domestic dependent elementary and secondary
schools among functions of Advisory Council on
Dependents' Education (sec. 575)....................... 114
Department of Defense suicide prevention programs for
military dependents (sec. 576)......................... 114
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 114
Enhancement of authority to accept support for Air Force
Academy athletic programs (sec. 581)................... 114
Items of Special Interest.................................... 115
Comptroller General of the United States report on the
sexual assault prevention activities of the Department
of Defense and the Armed Forces........................ 115
Comptroller General report on access to on-base services
by junior enlisted personnel........................... 115
Comptroller General report on feasibility and
advisability of longer tour lengths.................... 116
Comptroller General review of Department of Defense
progress in expanding service opportunities for women.. 116
Continuation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.. 117
Cyber career field....................................... 118
Department of Defense policy and plan for prevention and
response to sexual harassment in the Armed Forces...... 118
Funding for the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps...... 119
Military chaplains....................................... 119
Online employment search-tool consolidation.............. 119
Sexual Assault Bystander Prevention...................... 120
Standardized survivor experience surveys................. 120
Use and adequacy of military leave for federal employees
who are members of reserve components.................. 120
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 123
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 123
Fiscal year 2015 increase in military basic pay (sec.
601)................................................... 123
Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau and
Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau among senior members of the Armed Forces
for the purposes of pay and allowances (sec. 602)...... 123
Modification of computation of basic allowance for
housing inside the United States (sec. 603)............ 123
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in
rates of basic allowance for housing under certain
circumstances (sec. 604)............................... 123
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 123
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611).............. 123
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)... 124
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities
for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................ 124
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37
consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
authorities (sec. 614)................................. 124
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)..... 124
Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor
Benefits................................................... 125
Inapplicability of reduced annual adjustment of retired
pay for members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62
under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 who first
become members prior to January 1, 2016 (sec. 621)..... 125
Modification of determination of retired pay base for
officers retired in general and flag officer grades
(sec. 622)............................................. 125
Modification of per-fiscal year calculation of days of
certain active duty or active service to reduce
eligibility age for retirement for non-regular service
(sec. 623)............................................. 125
Earlier determination of dependent status with respect to
transitional compensation for dependents of certain
members separated for dependent abuse (sec. 624)....... 126
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts
established for the benefit of dependent children
incapable of self-support (sec. 625)................... 126
Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................... 126
Procurement of brand-name and other commercial items for
resale by commissary stores (sec. 631)................. 126
Items of Special Interest.................................... 126
Department of Defense pay and benefit proposals.......... 126
Department of Defense proposal to modify commissary
benefit................................................ 127
Secretary of Defense review of pay table................. 128
Survey of preferences of members of the Armed Forces
regarding military pay and benefits.................... 128
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................ 129
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program.................................. 129
Annual mental health assessments for members of the Armed
Forces (sec. 701)...................................... 129
Modifications of cost-sharing and other requirements for
the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program (sec. 702)....... 129
Parity in provision of inpatient mental health services
with other inpatient medical services (sec. 703)....... 129
Availability of breastfeeding support, supplies, and
counseling under the TRICARE program (sec. 704)........ 129
Authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for emerging
health care products and services (sec. 705)........... 129
Report on status of reductions in TRICARE Prime service
areas (sec. 706)....................................... 130
Repeal of requirement for ongoing Comptroller General of
the United States reviews of viability of TRICARE
Standard and TRICARE Extra (sec. 707).................. 130
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 130
Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health
Care Fund matters (sec. 721)........................... 130
Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund (sec. 722).......................... 131
Department of Defense-wide strategy for contracting for
health care professionals for the Department of Defense
(sec. 723)............................................. 131
Program on medication management in the Department of
Defense (sec. 724)..................................... 131
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 131
Report on military family planning programs of the
Department of Defense (sec. 731)....................... 131
Interagency working group on the provision of mental
health services to members of the National Guard and
the Reserves (sec. 732)................................ 131
Report on improvements in the identification and
treatment of mental health conditions and traumatic
brain injury among members of the Armed Forces (sec.
733)................................................... 132
Report on implementation of recommendations of Institute
of Medicine on improvements to certain resilience and
prevention programs of the Department of Defense (sec.
734)................................................... 132
Report on Department of Defense support of members of the
Armed Forces who experience traumatic injury as a
result of vaccinations required by the Department (sec.
735)................................................... 132
Comptroller General of the United States report on
Military Health System Modernization Study of the
Department of Defense (sec. 736)....................... 132
Items of Special Interest.................................... 133
Autism spectrum disorder services........................ 133
Behavioral health treatment of developmental disabilities
under TRICARE.......................................... 133
Consolidated TRICARE health plan......................... 133
Department of Defense collaboration with the Department
of Veterans Affairs on the disability claims processing
backlog................................................ 134
Prosthetics for servicemembers........................... 134
Treatment for obesity.................................... 135
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 137
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 137
Open systems approach to acquisition of systems
containing information technology (sec. 801)........... 137
Recharacterization of changes to Major Automated
Information System programs (sec. 802)................. 138
Process map requirement for milestone approval of defense
business system programs (sec. 803).................... 139
Governance of Joint Information Environment (sec. 804)... 139
Report on implementation of acquisition process for
information technology systems (sec. 805).............. 140
Revision of requirement for acquisition programs to
maintain defense research facility records (sec. 806).. 142
Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for United
States Special Operations Command (sec. 807)........... 142
Consideration of corrosion control in preliminary design
review (sec. 808)...................................... 142
Repeal of extension of Comptroller General report on
inventory (sec. 809)................................... 142
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations................................ 143
Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to
multiyear defense acquisitions to be specifically
authorized by law (sec. 821)........................... 143
Extension and modification of contract authority for
advanced component development and prototype units and
modification of authority (sec. 822)................... 143
Conditional temporary extension of comprehensive
subcontracting plans (sec. 823)........................ 143
Sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit
electronic parts (sec. 824)............................ 144
Authority for Defense Contract Audit Agency to interview
contractor employees in connection with examination of
contractor records (sec. 825).......................... 144
Enhancement of whistleblower protection for employees of
grantees (sec. 826).................................... 144
Prohibition on reimbursement of contractors for
congressional investigations and inquiries (sec. 827).. 144
Enhanced authority to acquire certain products and
services produced in Africa (sec. 828)................. 144
Requirement to provide photovoltaic devices from United
States sources (sec. 829).............................. 144
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 144
Program manager development strategy (sec. 841).......... 144
Tenure and accountability of program managers for program
development periods (sec. 842)......................... 145
Tenure and accountability of program managers for program
execution periods (sec. 843)........................... 145
Removal of requirements related to waiver of preliminary
design review and post-preliminary design review before
Milestone B (sec. 844)................................. 145
Comptroller General of the United States report on
operational testing programs for major defense
acquisition programs (sec. 845)........................ 145
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 146
Extension to United States Transportation Command of
authorities relating to prohibition on contracting with
the enemy (sec. 861)................................... 146
Reimbursement of Department of Defense for assistance
provided to nongovernmental entertainment-oriented
media producers (sec. 862)............................. 146
Three-year extension of authority for Joint Urgent
Operational Needs Fund (sec. 863)...................... 146
Items of Special Interest.................................... 146
Army Financial Management Optimization Initiative........ 146
Business systems modernization........................... 147
Clarification on the use of energy savings performance
contracts.............................................. 147
Comptroller General of the United States report on
counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts.... 148
Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense
audit readiness efforts for property, plant, and
equipment.............................................. 149
Government Accountability Office review of Nunn-McCurdy
reporting requirements applicable to major automated
information systems experiencing cost or schedule
overruns............................................... 149
Joint Information Environment............................ 150
Next Generation Enterprise Network....................... 150
Performance Based Logistics.............................. 151
Report on Statement of Budgetary Activity to assess
progress toward auditability........................... 151
Small businesses and the health of the U.S. defense
industrial base........................................ 152
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 153
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 153
Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and related matters (sec. 901)......................... 153
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs (sec. 902)..................................... 155
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 156
Modifications to requirements for accounting for members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees listed as missing (sec. 911)................. 156
Items of Special Interest.................................... 156
Headquarters Reductions of the Department of Defense..... 156
Plan on satisfying emergent warfighter needs............. 158
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 161
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 161
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 161
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1002)........... 161
Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003)............. 161
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 161
Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug
and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011).. 161
Extension and modification of authority for joint task
forces supporting law enforcement agencies conducting
activities to counter transnational organized crime to
support law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
terrorism activities (sec. 1012)....................... 162
Extension of authority to provide additional support for
counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments
(sec. 1013)............................................ 163
Extension and modification of authority of Department of
Defense to provide additional support for counterdrug
activities of other governmental agencies (sec. 1014).. 163
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 164
Limitation on use of funds for inactivation of U.S.S.
George Washington (sec. 1021).......................... 164
Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of
Ticonderoga class cruisers or dock landing ships (sec.
1022).................................................. 165
Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on
extended deployments (sec. 1023)....................... 166
Authority for limited coastwise trade for certain vessels
providing transportation services under a shipbuilding
or ship repair contract with the Secretary of the Navy
(sec. 1024)............................................ 166
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 167
Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031).................................. 167
Report on facilitation of transfer overseas of certain
individuals detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1032)....................... 167
Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to
the United States for emergency or critical medical
treatment (sec. 1033).................................. 167
Prohibition on transfer or release to Yemen of
individuals detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034)....................... 168
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 168
Reduction in Department of Defense civilian personnel and
review of certain headquarters spending (sec. 1041).... 168
Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec.
1042).................................................. 168
Authority to accept certain voluntary legal support
services (sec. 1043)................................... 169
Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau among
leadership of the Department of Defense provided
physical protection and personal security (sec. 1044).. 169
Inclusion of regional organizations in authority for
assignment of civilian employees of the Department of
Defense as advisors to foreign ministries of defense
(sec. 1045)............................................ 169
Extension of authority to waive reimbursement of costs of
activities for nongovernmental personnel at Department
of Defense regional centers for security studies (sec.
1046).................................................. 170
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports.............................. 170
Reports on recommendations of the National Commission on
the Structure of the Air Force (sec. 1061)............. 170
Review of operation of certain ships during the Vietnam
era (sec. 1062)........................................ 170
Assessment of the operations research tools, processes,
and capabilities in support of requirements analysis
for major defense acquisition programs and allocation
of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
assets (sec. 1063)..................................... 171
Review of United States military strategy and the force
posture of allies and partners in the United States
Pacific Command area of responsibility (sec. 1064)..... 173
Department of Defense policies on community involvement
in Department community outreach events (sec. 1065).... 173
Comptroller General of the United States briefing and
report on management of the conventional ammunition
demilitarization stockpile of the Department of Defense
(sec. 1066)............................................ 173
Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec.
1067).................................................. 173
Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the
United States annual reviews and report on pilot
program on commercial fee-for-service air refueling
support for the Air Force (sec. 1068).................. 173
Subtitle G--Uniformed Services Voting........................ 174
Part I--Provision of Voter Assistance to Members of the Armed
Forces..................................................... 174
Provision of annual voter assistance (sec. 1071)......... 174
Designation of voter assistance offices (sec. 1072)...... 174
Part II--Electronic Voting Systems........................... 174
Repeal of electronic voting demonstration project (sec.
1076).................................................. 174
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 174
Biennial surveys of Department of Defense civilian
employees on workplace and gender relations matters
(sec. 1081)............................................ 174
Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory
Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 1082)............. 174
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 (sec. 1083)................. 175
Expansion of authority for Secretary of Defense to use
the Department of Defense reimbursement rates for
transportation services provided to certain non-
Department of Defense entities (sec. 1084)............. 175
Pilot program to rehabilitate and modify homes of
disabled and low-income veterans (sec. 1085)........... 175
Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1086)............ 175
Items of Special Interest.................................... 175
Army force structure and installation alignment.......... 175
Comptroller General of the United States review of
burden-sharing agreements and posture costs............ 176
Comptroller General of the United States review of the
National Guard Counterdrug Program..................... 177
Detention of Third Country Nationals in Afghanistan...... 178
National Guard Counterdrug Program....................... 179
Preparing for increased Arctic operations................ 179
Transfer of aircraft to other departments for wildfire
suppression and other purposes......................... 180
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters............................. 181
Extension and modification of experimental program for
scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1101)......... 181
Modifications of biennial strategic workforce plan
relating to senior management, functional, and
technical workforces of the Department of Defense (sec.
1102).................................................. 181
One-year extension of authority to waive annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
pay for Federal civilian employees working overseas
(sec. 1103)............................................ 181
Personnel authorities for civilian personnel for the
United States Cyber Command (sec. 1104)................ 181
Item of Special Interest..................................... 182
Assignment of Department of Defense civilian employees
with cyber skills...................................... 182
Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations................... 183
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 183
Modification of Department of Defense authority for
humanitarian stockpiled conventional munitions
assistance programs (sec. 1201)........................ 183
Codification of recurring limitations on the use of funds
for assistance for units of foreign security forces
that have committed a gross violation of human rights
(sec. 1202)............................................ 183
Codification and enhancement of authority to build the
capacity of foreign security forces (sec. 1203)........ 183
Training of security forces and associated ministries of
foreign countries to promote respect for the rule of
law and human rights (sec. 1204)....................... 185
Modification and extension of Global Security Contingency
Fund authority (sec. 1205)............................. 185
Use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend
certain military equipment to certain foreign forces
for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1206). 186
Cross servicing agreements for loan of personnel
protection and personnel survivability equipment in
coalition operations (sec. 1207)....................... 186
Extension and modification of authority for support of
special operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1208)..... 186
Assistance to foster a negotiated settlement to the
conflict in Syria (sec. 1209).......................... 187
Limitations on security assistance for the Government of
Burma (sec. 1210)...................................... 188
Biennial report on programs carried out by the Department
of Defense to provide training, equipment, or other
assistance or reimbursement to foreign security forces
(sec. 1211)............................................ 188
Sense of the Senate on multilateral humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief exercises (sec. 1212)... 188
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq....................................................... 189
Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan
(sec. 1221)............................................ 189
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and
provide defense services to the military and security
forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1222)...................... 189
One-year extension of authority to use funds for
reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1223).... 190
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement
of certain coalition nations for support provided to
United States military operations (sec. 1224).......... 190
One-year extension of logistical support for coalition
forces supporting certain United States military
operations (sec. 1225)................................. 190
Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and
projects of the Department of Defense in Afghanistan
that cannot be safely accessed by United States
Government personnel (sec. 1226)....................... 191
Semiannual report on enhancing the strategic partnership
between the United States and Afghanistan (sec. 1227).. 191
Report on bilateral security cooperation with Pakistan
(sec. 1228)............................................ 191
Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance on former United
States training ranges in Afghanistan (sec. 1229)...... 191
Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (sec. 1230)........ 192
Extension and modification of authority to support
operations and activities of the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1231)........................ 192
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 192
Report on impact of end of major combat operations in
Afghanistan on authority to use military force (sec.
1241).................................................. 192
United States strategy for enhancing security and
stability in Europe (sec. 1242)........................ 192
Report on military and security developments involving
the Russian Federation (sec. 1243)..................... 193
Modification of matters for discussion in annual reports
of United States-China Economic and Security Review
Commission (sec. 1244)................................. 193
Report on maritime security strategy and annual briefing
on military to military engagement with the People's
Republic of China (sec. 1245).......................... 194
Report on military assistance to Ukraine (sec. 1246)..... 194
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 195
Treatment of Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (sec. 1261)............................ 195
Notification on potentially significant arms control
noncompliance (sec. 1262).............................. 195
Enhanced authority for provision of support to foreign
military liaison officers of foreign countries while
assigned to the Department of Defense (sec. 1263)...... 195
One-year extension of authorization for non-conventional
assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1264)............. 195
Inter-European Air Forces Academy (sec. 1265)............ 195
Extension of limitations on providing certain missile
defense information to the Russian Federation (sec.
1266).................................................. 196
Prohibition on direct or indirect use of funds to enter
into contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec.
1267).................................................. 196
Items of Special Interest.................................... 196
Annual report on the military power of Iran.............. 196
Comptroller General of the United States review of
Department of Defense security assistance to the
Republic of Yemen...................................... 197
Maritime security in West Africa......................... 198
Nigeria and the threat posed by Boko Haram............... 198
Northeast Asian intelligence threats..................... 199
Plans for bases in Afghanistan........................... 200
Support of foreign forces participating in operations
against the Lord's Resistance Army..................... 200
United States-India Defense Security Cooperation......... 201
United States Strategy on the African Union Mission in
Somalia................................................ 201
Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction......................... 203
Subtitle A--Funding Allocations.............................. 203
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec.
1301).................................................. 203
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).......................... 203
Subtitle B--Consolidation and Modernization of Statutes
Relating to the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program.......................................... 203
Consolidation and modernization of statutes relating to
the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program (secs. 1311-1352).............................. 203
Title XIV--Other Authorizations.................................. 205
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 205
Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................ 205
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
1402).................................................. 205
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1403)....................................... 205
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404).................... 205
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)....................... 205
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile and Related Matters... 205
Report on development of secure supply of rare earth
materials (sec. 1411).................................. 205
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 206
Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health
Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1421)...................... 206
Comptroller General of the United States report on
Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center,
North Chicago, Illinois (sec. 1422).................... 206
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1423)............................ 206
Designation and responsibilities of Senior Medical
Advisor for the Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1424).................................................. 206
Budget Items................................................. 206
Meals, ready-to-eat...................................... 206
Defense Commissary Agency................................ 207
Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
support to United States Southern Command.............. 207
Defense Health Program funding........................... 208
Items of Special Interest.................................... 208
Defense working capital funds............................ 208
Department of Defense Inspector General.................. 208
Title XV--Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations......................................... 211
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 211
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 211
Overseas Contingency Operations (sec. 1502).............. 211
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 211
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1511)....... 211
Special transfer authority (sec. 1512)................... 211
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters.......... 211
Plan for transition of funding of United States Special
Operations Command from supplemental funding for
overseas contingency operations to recurring funding
for future years defense programs (sec. 1521).......... 211
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1522) 212
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1523)............. 212
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (sec. 1524).............. 213
Sense of Congress regarding counter-improvised explosive
devices (sec. 1525).................................... 213
Budget Item.................................................. 213
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 213
Title XVI--Strategic Programs, Cyber, and Intelligence Matters... 215
Subtitle A--Nuclear Forces................................... 215
Procurement authority for certain parts of
intercontinental ballistic missile fuses (sec. 1601)... 215
Form of and cost estimates relating to annual reports on
plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons
complex, nuclear weapons delivery systems, and nuclear
weapons command and control system (sec. 1602)......... 215
Reports on installation of nuclear command, control, and
communications systems at the United States Strategic
Command headquarters (sec. 1603)....................... 215
Reports on potential reductions to B61 life extension
program (sec. 1604).................................... 216
Sense of Congress on deterrence and defense posture of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1605)..... 216
Subtitle B--Missile Defense Programs......................... 216
Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 1611)........... 216
Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 1612)........... 217
Availability of funds for missile defense programs of
Israel (sec. 1613)..................................... 218
Acquisition plan for re-designed Exo-atmospheric Kill
Vehicle (sec. 1614).................................... 219
Testing and assessment of missile defense systems prior
to production and deployment (sec. 1615)............... 220
Subtitle C--Space Activities................................. 221
Update of National Security Space Strategy to include
space control and space superiority strategy (sec.
1621).................................................. 221
Allocation of funds for the Space Security and Defense
Program; Report on Space Control (sec. 1622)........... 221
Prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers of
critical space launch supplies for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (sec. 1623).......... 221
Assessment of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program
(sec. 1624)............................................ 222
Report on reliance of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
program on foreign manufacturers (sec. 1625)........... 222
Availability of additional rocket cores pursuant to
competitive procedures (sec. 1626)..................... 222
Competitive procedures required to launch payload for
mission number five of the Operationally Responsive
Space program (sec. 1627).............................. 222
Limitation on funding for storage of Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program satellites (sec. 1628) 222
Plan for development of liquid rocket engine for medium
or heavy lift launch vehicle; transfer of certain funds
(sec. 1629)............................................ 223
Study of space situational awareness architecture (sec.
1630).................................................. 224
Sense of the Senate on resolution limits on commercial
space imagery (sec. 1631).............................. 224
Subtitle D--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related
Matters.................................................... 225
Cyberspace mapping (sec. 1641)........................... 225
Review of cross domain solution policy and requirement
for cross domain solution strategy (sec. 1642)......... 226
Budgeting and accounting for cyber mission forces (sec.
1643).................................................. 227
Requirement for strategy to develop and deploy decryption
service for the Joint Information Environment (sec.
1644).................................................. 227
Reporting on penetrations into networks and information
systems of operationally critical contractors (sec.
1645).................................................. 228
Sense of Congress on the future of the Internet and the
.mil top level domain (sec. 1646)...................... 229
Subtitle E--Intelligence-Related Matters..................... 230
Extension of Secretary of Defense authority to engage in
commercial activities as security for intelligence
collection activities (sec. 1651)...................... 230
Authority for Secretary Of Defense to engage in
commercial activities as security for military
operations abroad (sec. 1652).......................... 230
Extension of authority relating to jurisdiction over
Department of Defense facilities for intelligence
collection or special operations activities abroad
(sec. 1653)............................................ 230
Personnel security and insider threat (sec. 1654)........ 230
Migration of Distributed Common Ground System of
Department of the Army to an open system architecture
(sec. 1655)............................................ 232
Budget Items................................................. 232
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites...... 232
Mobile Ground System..................................... 232
Space Based Infrared System.............................. 232
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle engine development..... 232
Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite.............. 233
Operationally Responsive Space........................... 233
Items of Special Interest.................................... 233
Air Force, Navy, National Nuclear Security Administration
collaboration on strategic systems..................... 233
Ammonium Perchlorate..................................... 234
Analysis of satellites available for open competition.... 234
Analytic support to cyber policy and planning............ 234
Assessment of cost of Space Situational Awareness system. 235
Authorities and responsibilities of the Department of
Defense Inspector General.............................. 235
Electro-optical infrared capabilities for the follow on
weather satellite...................................... 236
Foreign interest in United States air and missile defense
technology............................................. 236
Information assurance and certified workforce training... 236
Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System.............. 237
Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted
Sensor................................................. 237
Mobile User Objective System Ground Terminals............ 238
New START Treaty Force Structure......................... 238
Ohio Replacement Program................................. 239
Processes for the secure provision of sensitive
compartmented information to congressional committees.. 239
Projected workload at wide band satellite operations
centers................................................ 240
Replacement of the Mission Planning and Analysis System.. 240
Report on Intercontinental Ballistic Missile readiness... 240
Report on the Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage
Areas.................................................. 241
Review of GPS III Operational Ground Control............. 242
Science and technology talent options for the Missile
Defense Agency......................................... 242
Security of Department of Defense industrial control
systems................................................ 242
Standing and Implementation of Nuclear Forces............ 243
Update on nuclear command, control, and communications
systems acquisition.................................... 243
Title XVII--National Commission on the Future of the Army........ 245
National commission on the future of the Army (secs.
1701-1709)............................................. 245
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations................. 247
Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 247
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 247
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 247
Title XXI--Army Military Construction............................ 249
Summary.................................................. 249
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 249
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 250
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........ 250
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2004 project (sec. 2104).......................... 250
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2013 projects (sec. 2105)......................... 250
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2106).................................... 251
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2107)................................... 251
Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United
States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2108).......... 251
Limitation on funding for family housing construction at
Camp Walker, Republic of Korea (sec. 2109)............. 251
Title XXII--Navy Military Construction........................... 253
Summary.................................................. 253
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 253
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 253
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 253
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 254
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2012 projects (sec. 2205)......................... 254
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2014 project (sec. 2206).......................... 254
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011
projects (sec. 2207)................................... 254
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2208)................................... 254
Item of Special Interest..................................... 254
Quarterly reports on Naval Sea Systems Command
Headquarters restoration............................... 254
Title XXIII--Air Force Military Construction..................... 257
Summary.................................................. 257
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 257
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2302)... 257
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2008 project (sec. 2303).......................... 257
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2304).................................... 258
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2305)................................... 258
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies Military Construction............... 259
Summary.................................................. 259
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 259
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 259
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)...... 259
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 259
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2404).................................... 260
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2405)................................... 260
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 260
Authorization of appropriations, chemical
demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) 260
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2000 project (sec. 2412).......................... 260
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program........................................................ 261
Summary.................................................. 261
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 261
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 261
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities.................. 263
Summary.................................................. 263
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations............................................. 263
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 263
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 263
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 264
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 264
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 264
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 264
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 264
Modification and extension of authority to carry out
certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 2611).......... 264
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2013 project (sec. 2612).......................... 264
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2613).................................... 265
Title XXVII--Base Realignment and Closure Activities............. 267
Summary and explanation of tables........................ 267
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
Base Closure Account (sec. 2701)....................... 267
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and
closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)....................... 267
HUBZones (sec. 2703)..................................... 267
Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Provisions........... 269
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 269
Clarification of authorized use of in-kind payments and
in-kind contributions (sec. 2801)...................... 269
Residential building construction standards (sec. 2802).. 270
Modification of minor military construction authority for
projects to correct deficiencies that are life-,
health-, or safety-threatening (sec. 2803)............. 270
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use
operation and maintenance funds for construction
projects in certain areas outside the United States
(sec. 2804)............................................ 270
Limitation on construction projects in European Command
area of responsibility (sec. 2805)..................... 270
Limitation on construction of new facilities at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 2806)....................... 271
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 271
Deposit of reimbursed funds to cover administrative
expenses relating to certain real property transactions
(sec. 2811)............................................ 271
Renewals, extensions, and succeeding leases for financial
institutions operating on Department of Defense
installations (sec. 2812).............................. 271
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military
Realignment................................................ 272
Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific region
(sec. 2821)............................................ 272
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 273
Land conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii
(sec. 2831)............................................ 273
Land exchange, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2832).... 273
Transfers of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Frank D.
Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia (sec. 2833)........... 273
Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Gruber,
Oklahoma (sec. 2834)................................... 273
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 274
Establishment of memorial to the victims of the shooting
at the Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013 (sec.
2841).................................................. 274
Items of Special Interest.................................... 274
Design build contracts................................... 274
Laboratory revitalization................................ 274
Privatized lodging....................................... 275
Report on military construction unfunded requirements.... 275
Reprogramming packages for military construction projects 276
Scope of work variations................................. 276
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorizations....................................... 279
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 279
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 279
Overview................................................. 279
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 280
Weapons activities................................... 280
Directed stockpile work.............................. 280
Campaigns............................................ 281
Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations.............. 282
Secure transportation asset.......................... 283
Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information
Officer............................................ 283
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............ 283
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development........................................ 284
Nonproliferation and international security.......... 284
International nuclear materials protection and
cooperation........................................ 284
Fissile Materials Disposition program................ 284
Global threat reduction initiative................... 284
Naval Reactors....................................... 284
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response........... 285
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs... 285
Office of the Administrator.......................... 285
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 285
Savannah River Site.................................. 285
Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Activities....... 286
Hanford Site......................................... 286
Idaho National Laboratory............................ 286
Los Alamos National Laboratory....................... 286
Oak Ridge Reservation................................ 286
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.......................... 286
Safeguards and Security.............................. 286
Technology Development............................... 287
Program Direction and Support........................ 287
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 287
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 287
Life-cycle cost estimates of certain atomic energy
defense capital assets (sec. 3111)..................... 287
Expansion of requirement for independent cost estimates
on life extension programs and new nuclear facilities
(sec. 3112)............................................ 287
Implementation of Phase I of Uranium Capabilities
Replacement Project (sec. 3113)........................ 287
Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances
and Worker Health (sec. 3114).......................... 288
Comments of Administrator for Nuclear Security on reports
of Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of
the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3115)............ 288
Identification of amounts required for uranium technology
sustainment in budget materials for fiscal year 2016
(sec. 3116)............................................ 288
Budget Items................................................. 288
Cruise Missile Warhead Life Extension Program............ 288
Environment Safety and Health............................ 289
Legacy Management........................................ 289
Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances
and Worker Health...................................... 289
Inertial confinement facility operations and target
production............................................. 289
Federal salaries and expenses............................ 289
Items of Special Interest.................................... 289
Efforts to meet the 2019 move of plutonium capabilities
from the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility.... 289
Laboratory Scientific Equipment Sustainment.............. 290
National Nuclear Security Administration Governance...... 290
Procurement of unencumbered special nuclear material for
tritium production..................................... 290
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 293
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 293
Title XXXV--Maritime Administration.............................. 293
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)...................... 293
Division D--Funding Tables....................................... 293
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 293
Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701)......................... 293
Legislative Requirements..................................... 434
Departmental Recommendations............................. 434
Committee Action......................................... 434
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 436
Regulatory Impact........................................ 436
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 436
Additional Views............................................. 436
Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe........................... 436
Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte........................... 441
Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Ms. Ayotte, and Mr. Vitter..................... 443
Calendar No. 402
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-176
======================================================================
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
June 2, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Levin, from the Committee on Armed Services,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 2410]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year
2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends
that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
This bill would:
(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2015;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2015;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2015;
(4) impose certain reporting requirements;
(5) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and research, development, test
and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide
certain additional legislative authority, and make
certain changes to existing law;
(6) authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2015; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2015.
Committee overview
Five years ago, the United States had almost 200,000
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Now, after almost 12 years of continuous conflict,
U.S. forces are drawing down in Afghanistan and are no longer
deployed in Iraq.
Nonetheless, the United States continues to face serious
security challenges around the globe. For example:
Russia has violated international law and
undermined 3 decades of peaceful development in Eastern Europe
by seizing Crimea and massing tens of thousands of troops near
the Ukrainian border.
Al Qaeda leadership has been significantly
degraded in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but terrorist
organizations with links to al Qaeda continue to demonstrate an
ability to exploit safe havens in ungoverned areas, including
parts of North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Syria, Iraq, and
Yemen.
Despite an international agreement to remove
chemical weapons from Syria, the Assad regime continues to
systematically attack civilian population centers, leading to
thousands of casualties and millions of refugees and increasing
the risk of regional instability.
In Iraq, the disturbing seizure by al Qaeda-
affiliated militants of control in portions of Fallujah and
Ramadi reflects in part the failure of a sectarian-influenced
government to reach out to disenfranchised Sunni groups.
The new North Korean regime has adopted the same
destructive policies as its predecessors, pursuing its nuclear
weapons and ballistic missile programs with callous disregard
for the well-being of its own people and the region.
China's pursuit of new military capabilities
raises concerns about its intentions, particularly in the
context of the country's increasing willingness to assert its
controversial claims of sovereignty in the South China and East
China seas.
Here at home, the United States remains vulnerable to
attacks on computer networks critical to our economy, to the
provision of public services, and to our national security.
The men and women of our Armed Forces--as well as the
civilians and contractors who support them--have worked
honorably and courageously to take on these challenges on our
behalf, often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice
to themselves and their families. The committee, Congress, and
the American people owe them a debt of gratitude for this
service.
Despite the challenges we face and our commitment to the
men and women of the Department of Defense (DOD), the
President's budget for fiscal year 2015 proposes reductions in
force structure and compensation that increase risk for our
nation and for the men and women who protect us. These
reductions are driven by the top line of the budget--a topline
that Congress dictated when we enacted the Budget Control Act
of 2011 and reaffirmed (with minor relief in fiscal years 2014
and 2015 for DOD and other agencies) in the Bipartisan Budget
Act that we enacted earlier this year.
The top line of $496.0 billion established in law for the
fiscal year 2015 defense budget is unchanged from the funding
level in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and remains more than
$30.0 billion below the funding provided to DOD in fiscal years
2010, 2011, and 2012. In real terms, the drop is even deeper,
with a reduction of $75.0 billion since fiscal year 2010 and
virtually no projected growth in inflation-adjusted dollars
through the balance of the future years defense program.
This shortfall requires painful trade-offs in just about
every area of the defense budget. For example, the President's
budget proposes significantly lower end strengths for the
ground forces, including a further reduction of 50,000 in
active-duty Army end strength, with smaller reductions in the
Guard and Reserve. The budget restricts the pay raise for
servicemembers below the rate of inflation; freezes pay for
general and flag officers; begins a phased reduction in the
growth of the housing allowance that could result in increased
out of pocket expenses for servicemembers' housing costs;
reduces support to commissaries; and makes significant changes
to TRICARE benefits.
The budget also calls for retiring the Air Force's A-10 and
U-2 aircraft, inactivating half of the Navy's cruiser fleet,
reducing the size of the Army's helicopter fleet by 25 percent,
and terminating the Ground Combat Vehicle Program. Military
construction funding has been reduced by more than 40 percent
compared to last year's budget request and facilities
sustainment accounts are funded at only 65 percent of the
requirement in this year's request. If the budget caps remain
unchanged in fiscal year 2016 and beyond, DOD has informed us
that it will request further reductions in end strength, the
retirement of the entire KC-10 tanker fleet and the Global Hawk
Block 40 fleet, reduced purchases of Joint Strike Fighters and
unmanned aerial vehicles, the inactivation of additional ships,
reduced purchases of destroyers, and the elimination of an
aircraft carrier and a carrier air wing.
The committee-reported bill attempts to address some of
these issues, subject to the requirement that any increase to
the proposed budget be accompanied by an offsetting reduction.
The civilian and military leaders of DOD have cautioned us,
however, that it will be extremely difficult to provide
adequate funding for the national defense and for our men and
women in uniform unless Congress acts to increase the budget
caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended.
To date, in this Second Session of the 113th Congress, the
Senate Committee on Armed Services has conducted 44 hearings
and formal briefings on the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2014, threats to our national security, and related
matters. In order to provide a framework for the consideration
of these matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines for
its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014. These guidelines are as follows:
(1) Ensure the long-term viability of the all-
volunteer force by sustaining the quality-of-life of
the men and women of the total force (active-duty,
National Guard, and Reserves) and their families, as
well as DOD civilian personnel, through fair pay,
policies and benefits, and by addressing the needs of
the wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their
families.
(2) Reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking
action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the
readiness of the military services to conduct the full
range of their assigned missions.
(3) Provide our servicemen and women with the
resources, training, technology, equipment, facilities,
and authorities they will need to succeed in future
combat, counterinsurgency, and stability operations.
(4) Successfully conclude the U.S. combat mission in
Afghanistan, while enhancing the capability of the U.S.
Armed Forces to support other nations in their efforts
to increase their capacity to provide for their
domestic and regional security and contribute to
international security.
(5) Enhance the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces
and the security forces of allied and friendly nations
to defeat al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other violent
extremist organizations.
(6) Improve the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to
counter emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing
on terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and their means of
delivery.
(7) Address the threats from nuclear weapons and
materials by strengthening nonproliferation programs,
maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the
size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and ensuring the
safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile, the
delivery systems, and the nuclear infrastructure.
(8) Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and
activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense
expenditures in light of the Nation's budget deficit
problems. Ensure the future capability, viability, and
fiscal sustainability of the all-volunteer force.
(9) Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil
fuels and seek greater energy security and independence
and pursue technological advances in traditional and
alternative energy storage, power systems, operational
energy tactical advantages, renewable energy
production, and more energy efficient ground, air, and
naval systems.
(10) Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of
DOD's programs and activities to ensure proper
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with
relevant laws and regulations.
Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget authority
implication
The administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2015 was $513.7
billion. Of this amount, $495.5 billion was requested for base
Department of Defense (DOD) programs and $17.9 billion was
requested for national security programs in the Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB).
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $513.6 billion in fiscal year 2015, including
$496.0 billion for base DOD programs and $17.7 billion for
national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB.
The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments
in Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary
authorizations in the committee recommendation and the
equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2015 defense
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
account for fiscal year 2015 and compares these amounts to the
request. The second table summarizes the total budget authority
implication for national defense by including national defense
funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the
defense committees or are already authorized.
Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in
accordance with the procedures established in the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (title I of Public Law 111-139).
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for procurement activities at the levels
identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Airborne electronic attack capabilities (sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of the Navy to take whatever steps the Secretary
deems appropriate and are available to the Navy to ensure that
the Navy retains the option of buying more EA-18G aircraft if
further analysis of whether to expand the airborne electronic
attack (AEA) force structure indicates the Navy should include
more EA-18G aircraft in carrier air wings. The provision would
also authorize the Navy, subject to appropriation, to use $75.0
million in funds authorized and appropriated in fiscal year
2014 for advance procurement funds of F/A-18 E/F aircraft for
the purpose of retaining such an option. The committee also
recommends an increase of $25.0 million in section 4101 for
these purposes.
The provision would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
provide briefings to the congressional defense committees by
September 1, 2014, on the options available to the Navy for
ensuring that the Navy will not be precluded from buying more
EA-18G aircraft if that is what the Navy analysis concludes
should be done. The provision would also require the briefings
to include an update on the Navy's progress in conducting its
analysis of emerging requirements for airborne electronic
attack.
The committee is aware of the Navy's recent efforts to
assess emerging and future operational requirements for
airborne electronic attack capability. Specifically, the Navy
has conducted some preliminary analysis that indicates that
there may be a requirement to have more than five EA-18G
aircraft in each carrier air wing. Deploying aircraft carrier
air wings with a five-plane EA-18G squadron was the basis for
concluding that the EA-18G production should end in fiscal year
2014. If the Navy analysis indicates that EA-18G squadrons
should be larger, the Navy may need to buy more aircraft.
This preliminary analysis done by the Navy was the basis of
the decision by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to include
buying 22 more EA-18G aircraft at a cost of $2.1 billion as the
number one item on his unfunded priority list for fiscal year
2015. Separately, the CNO has stated that the need for
electronic attack capability is critical, and also testified
before the committee that the operational requirement for
airborne electronic attack capacity is increasing, not
receding.
The committee is concerned that the Navy may complete the
analysis after the option of buying more EA-18G aircraft is
closed. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
complete that ongoing analysis promptly and to report the
study's findings to the congressional defense committees. The
committee also urges the Navy to provide the necessary funds in
the fiscal year 2016 budget and future years defense program to
meet its requirements for airborne electronic attack
requirement, based on that analysis.
In the meantime, the committee believes that the Navy
should take action to delay the point at which a pending
decision to close the EA-18G line may be made until the Navy
makes a decision on the appropriate size of the AEA force
structure.
Report on test evaluation master plan for Littoral Combat Ship
seaframes and mission modules (sec. 122)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees on the test evaluation
master plan for the seaframes and mission modules for the
Littoral Combat Ship program.
The report will include a description of the Navy's
progress with respect to the test evaluation master plan, and
an assessment of whether or not completion of the test
evaluation master plan will demonstrate operational
effectiveness and operational suitability for both seaframes
and each mission module.
Authority to transfer certain funds for refueling of aircraft carrier
and construction of amphibious ship (sec. 123)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to transfer funds available in the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), or other Navy
procurement account for either or both of the following
purposes:
(1) Up to $650.0 million to conduct a refueling and
complex overhaul of the USS George Washington (CVN-73).
(2) Up to $650.0 million to build a San Antonio-class
amphibious ship.
The provision would require that the Secretary make a
determination that unobligated balances to be transferred are
available due to slower than expected program execution, and
the transfer of funds will fill a high priority military need
and is in the best interest of the Department of the Navy.
It is the committee's intent that the Navy proceed with the
refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington
(CVN-73) should additional funds be made available in fiscal
year 2015 for that purpose.
Finally, the provision would authorize the Secretary to use
incremental funding for a San Antonio-class ship if additional
funds are made available in fiscal year 2015 for that purpose
and the Secretary determines that such procurement will fill a
high priority military need and is in the best interest of the
Department of the Navy.
The committee expects that, if the Secretary chooses to
transfer funds for the San Antonio-class program in fiscal year
2015, the Secretary will use funds from fiscal year 2015 and
fiscal year 2016 to fully fund any new San Antonio-class ship
put on contract during fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Prohibition on retirement of MQ-1 Predator aircraft (sec. 131)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Air Force from retiring any MQ-1 Predator aircraft during
fiscal year 2015.
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Air Force
aircraft (sec. 132)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report including an
analysis and recommendations for not less than 80 percent of
the Air Force missions and aircraft before retiring any Air
Force aircraft. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force testified to the committee that the Air
Force would complete an analysis of 80 percent of the Air Force
missions and aircraft by the end of calendar year 2014. That
ongoing analysis is assessing the appropriate contributions of
the regular Air Force, the Air National Guard, and the Air
Force Reserve to the total force structure of the Air Force.
The National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force found
that the Air Force could save as much as $2.0 billion per year
by realigning its forces between the active and reserve
components. The committee wants to ensure that any planned
retirements are reassessed in view of any savings that may be
achievable as a result of that analysis.
Temporary limitation on availability of funds for transfer of Air Force
C130H and C-130J aircraft (sec. 133)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report before
implementing any transfers of C-130H or C-130J aircraft. That
report would include: (1) A recommended basing alignment of the
C-130H2, C-130H3, and C-130J aircraft; (2) An identification of
how that plan deviates from the basing plan approved by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239); (3) An explanation of what that plan deviates, if
in any detail, from the plan approved by that Act; (4) An
assessment of the national security benefits and any other
expected benefits of the proposed transfers, including benefits
for the facility or facilities expected to receive the
transferred aircraft; (5) An assessment of the costs of the
proposed transfers, including the impact of the proposed
transfers on the facility or facilities from which the aircraft
will be transferred; (6) An analysis of the recommended basing
alignment that demonstrates that the recommendation is the most
effective and efficient alternative for such basing alignment;
and (7) For units equipped with special capabilities, such as
the modular airborne firefighting system capability, an
analysis of the impact of the proposed transfers on the ability
to satisfy missions that utilize those capabilities.
The provision would also require that the Comptroller
General conduct a review of the sufficiency of the Air Force
report within 45 days after the Air Force submits the report.
It is the committee's intent for Congress to have sufficient
time to review the Air Force report and the findings of the
Comptroller General's review before the Air Force acts.
The committee expects the Air Force to act in the spirit of
this provision for the rest of fiscal year 2014 until enactment
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of A-10 aircraft
(sec. 134)
The committee recommends a provision that would prevent
using any funds during fiscal year 2015 to retire, prepare to
retire, or place in storage any A-10 aircraft.
The committee expects the Air Force to execute the fiscal
year program in accordance with the spirit of this provision.
Specifically, the Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that
the Air Force does not close or consolidate A-10 units, make
changes to standard sustainment processes; or reduce A-10 pilot
training or A-10 flying disproportionally to reductions applied
to pilots or flying hours for other Air Force aircraft.
The committee believes that the Air Force is making this
decision purely on a basis of the fiscal environment and not on
grounds of effectiveness of the forces. The National Commission
on the Structure of the Air Force indicated that shifting to a
greater reliance on the Air Reserve components could save
roughly $2.0 billion per year that could be reinvested to
maintain greater capabilities. The committee does not want the
Air Force to execute any decision to retire the entire A-10
fleet until the Air Force has an opportunity to chart a
specific course for implementing the Commission's
recommendations.
The committee also recommends an increase of $256.5 million
for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, and $82.8 million for
Air Force military personnel accounts.
Limitation on transfer of KC-135 tankers (sec. 135)
The committee recommends a provision that would delay the
Air Force's plan to transfer KC-135 aircraft from Joint Base
Pearl Harbor-Hickam, pending a report on the costs and benefits
of that transfer.
It has come to the attention of the committee that the Air
Force intends to move four KC-135 tanker aircraft from a
forward-based position at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam to
base in the continental United States (CONUS).
With the administration's stated goal of rebalancing to the
Asia-Pacific region and the continued need for tanker support
throughout the region, the Air Force's planned transfer may not
make economic sense.
With the Department of Defense's emphasis on energy and
costs efficiencies, the Air Force should consider the resources
required to move CONUS-based KC-135s to the Asia-Pacific region
for exercises and requirements versus the cost of maintaining
the assets in theater.
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Airborne Warning
and Control System (AWACS) aircraft (sec. 136)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Air Force from retiring or preparing to retire any Airborne
Warning and Control Aircraft (AWACS) aircraft or making any
significant changes in manning levels in AWACS units in 2015.
The committee is concerned about the Air Force's plans to
retire aircraft from some of its high-demand, low-density (HD/
LD) weapon systems. Aircraft such as the E-3 AWACS, the E-8C
Joint Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance System
(JSTARS), and the EC-130 Compass Call have been under constant,
heavy demand, supporting overseas contingency operations as
well as homeland defense missions for the past two decades. The
committee believes these systems will continue to play a
critical role in our national defense until the Department of
Defense is able to field capabilities to replace these HD/LD
systems.
The committee understands that the proposed cuts are a
result of the budget caps enacted by Congress. However, the
planned retirement of seven E-3 AWACS in fiscal year 2015 from
a total fleet of 31 aircraft without a planned replacement is
risky and should be reconsidered. Accordingly, the committee
recommends provision that would delay this action for 1 year to
give the Air Force time to fully consider the recommendations
of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
and determine whether additional savings made available by
shifting force structure from the active component to the
reserve component could free up additional resources to make
the premature retirement of these critical aircraft
unnecessary.
The committee also recommends an increase of $34.6 million
for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, and $24.9 million for
Air Force military personnel accounts.
Report on status of air-launched cruise missile capabilities (sec. 137)
The committee recommends a provision that requires a report
on the existing air-launched cruise missile system (AGM-86) and
the plan for the replacement of the system referred to as the
long-range standoff missile.
Report on C-130 aircraft (sec. 138)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Air Force to submit a complete fielding plan for the C-130
aircraft, and specific details of the Air Force's plan to
maintain intra-theater capacity within both the active and the
reserve components, including its modernization and
recapitalization plan for all C-130H and C-130J aircraft.
One of the recommendations in the report of the National
Commission on the Structure of the Air Force was recommendation
number 11: ``As the Air Force acquires new equipment, force
integration plans should adhere to the principle of
proportional and concurrent fielding across the components.''
The committee wants to ensure that there will be concurrent
and proportional fielding of new aircraft and new capabilities
across the components. Elsewhere in another provision in this
Act, the committee recommends a provision that would require
the Air Force to report on its implementation plans for
recommendations of the Commission. The committee will review
closely how the Air Force plans to implement recommendation
number 11.
Report on status of F-16 aircraft (sec. 139)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional
defense committees on the status of the F-16 fleet, including
the status, location, and planned actions across the future
years defense program for all F-16s in the Air Force inventory.
This report shall be delivered not later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act.
Report on options to modernize or replace the T-1A aircraft (sec. 140)
The committee is concerned about the Air Force's aging
fleet of training aircraft used in its specialized
undergraduate pilot training. The committee supports the Air
Force's plan to develop a T-X aircraft to replace its 45-year-
old T-38C trainer. However, there is currently no plans or
budget to replace the T-1A, used to train all future tanker and
transport pilots.
While the T-1A came into service after the T-38C, it has
not received similar upgrades and service life extensions. The
T-1A now requires an avionics upgrade for the aircraft to be
certified to fly in the National Airspace past 2020. The
committee understands that the Commander of the Air Education
and Training Command has questioned the Air Force's ability to
afford both the T-X program and an upgrade to the T-1A at the
same time.
The committee is aware of an ongoing study by the Air Force
to determine whether the Air Force will return to generalized
training, with all pilots training in both T-6s and T-38s (or
the replacement T-X), in lieu of maintaining a separate
training syllabus for tanker and transport pilots. However, the
committee believes it prudent for the Air Force to conduct a
near-term evaluation of options to replace or modernize the T-
1A capability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the options for replacing or upgrading
the T-1A aircraft's capability, to include options of leased
aircraft or services, not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Budget Items
Army
Light Utility Helicopter
The budget request included $416.6 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for the UH-72A Light Utility Helicopter
(LUH). The committee recommends an increase of $196.0 million
in APA for procurement of additional LUH. The committee notes
that during analysis and development of options for program and
force structure savings required under the Budget Control Act,
the Army would divest its aviation force of all single engine
helicopters, including its older TH-67 Creek training aircraft
at the aviation school at Fort Rucker, Alabama. To replace the
TH-67, the Army selected the LUH aircraft that has been
procured over the last 6 years and is now widely used by the
Army and the Army National Guard (ARNG).
To quickly divest itself of the TH-67 and provide its
training base with sufficient numbers of LUH, the Army
initially considered transferring 100 LUH aircraft from the
ARNG to the aviation school. The committee understands that the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau expressed concerns about the
loss of LUH in the ARNG and the resulting reduction in
capability to provide domestic helicopter support to civil
authorities. The Secretary of Defense responded by directing
that the ARNG keep its aircraft and authorizing the Army
instead to procure 100 new LUH.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-
76), included an additional $75.0 million in APA for the
procurement of 10 more LUH aircraft for a total of 20 in that
year. The fiscal year 2015 budget request would procure another
55 of the 100 LUH authorized by the Secretary of Defense. The
committee's recommendation would allow the Army to complete
procurement of the needed additional aircraft and reduce future
operational and fiscal risk to replace older legacy training
aircraft with new build LUH. By funding the procurement of 35
more LUH in fiscal year 2015, the Army would replace all of its
legacy training aircraft and reduce the risk of having to take
any from the ARNG should procurement funds not be available in
fiscal year 2016 or beyond due to full sequestration.
UH-60 Black Hawk M model
The budget request included $1.2 billion in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for the UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter.
The committee recommends an increase of $145.0 million in APA
for procurement of additional UH-60M Black Hawks only for the
Army National Guard. Additional funding was included in the
Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list.
Common Missile Warning System
The budget request included $107.4 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for the Common Missile Warning System
(CMWS). At the Army's request, the committee recommends a
decrease of $47.2 million for CMWS. Also at the Army's request,
the committee recommends an increase in APA of $7.8 million for
advanced threat infrared countermeasures in aircraft
survivability equipment and $32.4 million for radio frequency
countermeasure in survivability countermeasures.
Bradley program modifications
The budget request included $107.5 million in Procurement
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for M2
Bradley modifications. The committee recommends an increase of
$37.0 million in WTCV for M2 Bradley modifications. Additional
funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the Army's
unfunded priorities list. The committee directs the Army to use
the additional funds to reduce risk in the armored vehicle
industrial base.
Improved recovery vehicle
The budget request included $50.5 million in Procurement of
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the
improved recovery vehicle (M88A2 Hercules). The committee
recommends an increase of $75.9 million in WTCV for M88A2
Hercules. Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff
of the Army's unfunded priorities list.
Joint assault bridge
The budget request included $49.5 million in Procurement of
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the joint
assault bridge. Funds requested are early to need; therefore,
the committee recommends a decrease of $41.2 million in WTCV
for joint assault bridge.
M1 Abrams tank modifications
The budget request included $237.0 million in Procurement
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for M1
Abrams tank modifications. The committee recommends an increase
of $24.0 million in WTCV for M1 Abrams tank modifications.
Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the
Army's unfunded priorities list. The committee directs the Army
to use the additional funds to reduce risk in the armored
vehicle industrial base.
Carbine
The budget request included $29.4 million in Procurement of
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the M4A1
carbine, $4.6 million for M240 medium machine gun
modifications, and $2.0 million for M16 rifle modifications. At
the Army's request, the committee recommends decreases of $8.8
million for M4A1 carbine, $2.0 million for M240 medium machine
gun modifications, and $2.0 million for M16 rifle
modifications.
Also at the Army's request, the committee recommends
increases in WTCV of $3.0 million for M4 carbine modifications,
and in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, in PE
63872A of $3.0 million for soldier systems advanced development
and in PE 64601A of $6.7 million for infantry support weapons
small arms improvement.
Modular handgun reduction
The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $9.6 million was for handgun
ammunition, all types, of which $3.1 million was for modular
handgun ammunition.
The committee is concerned that the request for modular
handgun ammunition is ahead of need and is not approved for
service use.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.5
million in PAA, handgun ammunition, all types, for modular
handgun ammunition.
40mm reduction
The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $40.9 million was for 40mm
ammunition, of which $1.9 million was for 40mm day/night/
thermal ammunition.
The committee is concerned that the request for 40mm day/
night/thermal is ahead of need and is not approved for service
use.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.9
million in PAA, 40mm, for 40mm day/night/thermal ammunition.
Precision Guidance Kit reduction
The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $94.0 million was for
artillery propellants, fuses and primers, of which $61.2
million was for artillery fuse, precision guidance kit (PGK).
The committee notes that PGK failed its first article test
and experienced a schedule delay.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0
million in PAA, artillery propellants, fuses, and primers for
PGK.
Warfighter Information Network--Tactical, increment 2
The budget request included $763.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Warfighter Information
Network--Tactical (WIN-T), increment 2. The committee
recommends a decrease of $125.0 million in OPA for WIN-T,
increment 2, due to development delays in the Point of Presence
and Soldier Network Extension components of the program.
Joint tactical radio system
The budget request included $175.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the joint tactical radio system
(JTRS). The committee recommends a decrease of $88.0 million in
OPA for JTRS due to slow execution of available prior year
funds.
Mid-tier Networking Vehicular Radio
The budget request included $9.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Mid-tier Networking Vehicular
Radio (MNVR). The committee recommends a decrease of $8.0
million in OPA for MNVR due to program delays and slow
execution of available prior year funds.
Family of weapon sights
The budget request included $49.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the family of weapon sights. Funds
requested are early to need; therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $12.0 million in OPA for family of
weapon sights.
Joint Battle Command--Platform
The budget request included $97.9 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Joint Battle Command Platform
(JBC-P). The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million
in OPA for JBC-P due to program delays and slow execution of
available prior year funds.
Counterfire radars
The budget request included $209.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for counterfire radars. The committee
recommends a decrease of $80.4 million in OPA for counterfire
radars due to the availability of prior year funds and
excessive concurrency through low rate initial production
(LRIP).
The committee notes that the Army has been buying and
fielding the AN/TPQ-53 counterfire radar using LRIP to meet
operational needs even though the system's design,
configuration, and performance have matured over time. This has
resulted in a retrofit requirement for systems already fielded
that will cost $85.0 million. The committee believes that there
is no operational urgency to continue to produce and field
systems that provide some but not all needed capabilities, and
that the Army can manage production rates with funds available
from prior years without creating additional requirements and
costs for retrofit.
The committee is concerned the Army continues to acquire
counterfire radars through LRIP acquiring over 50 percent of
its Army Acquisition Objective while the full rate production
decision has slipped almost a year as compared to the fiscal
year 2014 schedule. The committee also notes the Army's
counterfire radar sustainment concept is interim contractor
support.
The Secretary of the Army is directed to submit a report
that outlines the sustainment concept for counterfire radars
including the results of the core depot assessment and type I/
II business case analyses to determine the best mix of organic
depot and contractor logistics support. The report shall
address the Army's plan to compete contract logistics support
activities. The report is due to the congressional defense
committees not later than April 30, 2015.
Army information technology
The budget request included $155.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army Line 106 for automated data processing
equipment. The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0
million to this program. The committee recommends that the
Army, the Defense Information Systems Agency, and the Office of
the Secretary of Defense's Chief Information Officer should
coordinate efforts to ensure that Army information technology
procurement are not redundant with capabilities available under
joint, other Service, or other agency programs. Further, these
procurements should be made in a fashion so as to permit the
Army to re-compete contracts for individual elements of the
enterprise as necessary, in order to maximize cost savings due
to competition and to enable the Army to have a flexible
enterprise services modernization strategy.
Modification of in-service equipment
The budget request included $98.6 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the modification of in-service
equipment. Funds requested for the modification of the Army's
watercraft are early to need; therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $18.0 million in OPA for the
modification of in-service equipment.
Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request includes $115.1 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat fund for the Joint IED
Defeat Organization's (JIEDDO) staff and infrastructure
expenses.
As it has in each fiscal year since JIEDDO's inception, the
committee declines to recommend any funding for JIEDDO in the
base budget and therefore recommends a reduction of $115.1
million in the Joint IED Defeat fund. The committee understands
that the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to request funding
for the Joint IED Defeat fund in the overseas contingency
operations budget request later this year.
The committee recognizes the important work JIEDDO has done
but notes that JIEDDO was created as a temporary wartime
organization. The committee believes that the operational tempo
in U.S. Central Command provides an opportunity to conduct a
review, captured in another title of this Act, that should lead
to consolidation and, where appropriate, elimination of
organizations, such as JIEDDO, that provide response to
emergent warfighter needs.
Navy
EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System
The budget request included $32.9 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), line 39, for the EP-3E Airborne
Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System (ARIES). The Navy
has been pursuing spiral upgrades for the fleet of EP-3
aircraft for a number of years. The budget request did not
include funds to install Spiral 3 upgrade kits on the 11th and
12th EP-3E aircraft, or for the installation of electronic
intelligence sensor upgrade kits on the last eight EP-3E
aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million
to install these upgrade kits.
The committee appreciates the progress that the Navy has
made in answering the concerns of the committee and the Joint
Staff regarding the Navy's plans for shifting EP-3E and Special
Projects Aircraft (SPA) capabilities to the multi-intelligence
variant of the TRITON unmanned aerial vehicle and a quick
reaction capability (QRC) upgrade of the P-8A maritime patrol
aircraft.
However, the committee has a number of concerns about the
Navy's plan. The Navy's transition plan would still involve
eliminating personnel from the existing systems well before
replacement systems are available to maintain that capability.
This situation could create significant gaps in the ability to
meet the needs of the combatant commands. Secondly, there is a
real possibility that the Navy would be tempted to make even
greater reductions in current capability if they need to pay
for potential schedule delays in the development of the new
signals intelligence (SIGINT) payload for TRITON while
continuing to add orbits of the current version of TRITON that
has only modest SIGINT capability. Finally, the committee notes
that there is a mismatch between the operational concept for
the P-8A QRC, which would depend on remote operations and wide-
band communications, and the plan that would install wide-band
communications capability on the P-8A aircraft much later than
the fielding of the P-8A QRC capability.
Aircraft spares and repair parts
The budget request included $1.2 billion in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy for buying spares and repair parts for all
Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. This total included a request
for $956.0 million in replenishment spares, an increase of
$341.2 million from the fiscal year 2014 amount for
replenishments spares. The committee has strongly supported
efforts to improve readiness in Navy aviation programs. The
committee, however, also believes that the Navy will be able to
increase readiness and manage the Department's replenishment
spares portfolio with a smaller resource increase in fiscal
year 2015. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of
$35.0 million to the budget request.
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests
The fiscal year 2015 budget request reduced the number of
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests by two. Given the
importance of these tests to the readiness of the strategic
submarine force, the committee recommends $11.0 million to
procure one additional Strategic Programs Alteration Kit to
conduct an additional Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Test.
Tomahawk
The budget request included $194.3 million to procure 100
Tomahawk missiles. The future years defense program envisions
shutting down the Tomahawk production line after the fiscal
year 2015 procurement.
The Navy has been expending Tomahawk missiles on a fairly
regular basis of more than 100 missiles per year. The committee
believes that it would be imprudent to ramp down and close
Tomahawk missile production at this time.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $82.0
million to keep Tomahawk production at the minimum sustaining
rate of 196 missiles per year.
The committee is concerned about the Navy's abrupt decision
to truncate production. The Tomahawk is combat-proven missile,
having been used well over 2,000 times in the last two decades,
and has a proven operational track record and capability. The
Navy provided some limited information to support its proposal.
However, the analysis supporting projected inventories and
usage rates to be expected during the remainder of this decade
was incomplete.
Prior to making any decision to terminate new production
and transition to a mid-life upgrade, the Navy must ensure the
implications on production and recertification are fully
examined and understood.
The committee directs the Navy to provide, prior to
submission of the fiscal year 2016 President's budget, its
complete analysis of alternatives, including an assessment of
near-term and long-term threat analysis, impact on the
industrial base and the needed timing of a mid-life
certification/upgrade of the current Tomahawk inventory. This
analysis must clearly show annual projected inventory usage,
starting and ending inventory levels by fiscal year and what is
budgeted for Tomahawk, as well as for all related development
and production programs, with specific appropriation and line
item/program element detail. The Navy should provide this
information in an unclassified report with an accompanying
classified annex.
Navy enterprise information technology
The budget request included $87.2 million in Other
Procurement, Navy Line 161 for enterprise information
technology (IT). The committee notes that much of this funding
is supporting procurements related to the legacy Navy IT
systems located around the world. The committee is concerned
about the continued investment of funds into legacy IT
infrastructure, and believes that the Navy should seek to
leverage services, networks, and hardware available through the
Defense Information Systems Agency, the Next Generation
Enterprise Network, and other assets to the maximum extent
possible. The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million
to this program.
Power equipment assorted
The budget request included $8.9 million in Procurement,
Marine Corps (PMC) for assorted power equipment. The committee
recommends an increase of $2.9 million in PMC for advanced
power equipment. Additional funding was included in the
Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priorities list.
Air Force
RQ-4
The budget request included $54.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force for the RQ-4 Global Hawk program. These
funds are not to buy new air vehicles, but are intended for
miscellaneous procurement, to include equipment to support
depot activation, initial spares, support to complete delivery
of Global Hawk vehicles on contract, sensor operator trainer,
and procurement to replace equipment supported by disappearing
manufacturing sources.
The committee believes that the sensor operator trainer is
being requested ahead of need, and recommends a reduction of
$10.0 million to the budget request.
MQ-9
The budget request included $240.2 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to buy an additional 12 MQ-9 air
vehicles.
The committee understands that the MQ-9 program has $37.8
million in fiscal year 2013 APAF funds that are excess to
program needs. These funds will remain available for obligation
throughout fiscal year 2015, and can be used to offset other
fiscal year 2015 requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends reduction of $37.8
million to the MQ-9 budget request.
C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program
The budget request included $331.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force for the C-5M program, also known as the
C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). Of
that total, the request included $254.2 million for installing
RERP kits purchased in prior years.
The committee understands that there have been delays in
the RERP kit installation program and recommends a reduction of
$50.0 million in the C-5M program.
U-2
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the U-2 program did
not include any procurement funding for supporting the U-2
program but did include $5.5 million in PE 35202F for
developing various safety of flight and vanishing vendor
modifications.
The budget request for the Global Hawk program included
$86.8 million in procurement and $244.5 million in PE 35220F
for developing various capabilities for the Global Hawk,
including a total of $208.8 million for various Block 30
development efforts. Included in the Block 30 development
efforts was $136.0 million specifically for enhancements for
Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft to provide the Block 30 aircraft
with some level of capability that would be lost by retirement
of the U-2 aircraft. The Air Force plans to spend $1.9 billion
during the future years defense program (FYDP) for these
enhancements to Block 30.
The committee is skeptical of the Air Force's plans to
retire the U-2 in the near term and perhaps replace some of the
U-2's current capability after the end of the FYDP. First, this
plan would reduce capability and leave a deficit in meeting
combatant commanders' requirements now. Second, there is no
real guarantee that spending $1.9 billion in the FYDP will
allow the Air Force to replace the capability of the U-2 fleet
with capability from Global Hawk Block 30 fleet. Finally, the
FYDP that includes this funding is $115.0 billion more that the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) totals would allow for the
Department of Defense (DOD) during that period. If Congress
does not enact changes to amend the BCA, enhancement programs
like the Block 30 upgrades would be at great risk.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $64.3
million for various modifications and $5.8 million in research
and development activities for the U-2 fleet as planned last
year. The committee also recommends a reduction of $136.0
million in Global Hawk research and development activities
targeted at replacing U-2 capability.
The committee reminds DOD that the restrictions on retiring
the U-2 aircraft in section 133 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), as amended, remain in effect.
C-130 aircraft modifications
The fiscal year 2015 budget request did not request funding
for the C-130 avionics modernization program (AMP), but
included $7.4 million for communication, navigation,
surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) upgrades and $7.2
million for upgrading cockpit voice and digital data recorders
(CVR/DVR) for legacy C-130 aircraft in Aircraft Procurement,
Air Force (APAF). The program of record for modernizing the
legacy C-130 aircraft until the fiscal year 2013 budget request
was the C-130 AMP. When the Air Force announced a decision to
cancel AMP, the program was already in low rate initial
production and had delivered five aircraft, four additional
kits, and training devices.
Section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) prevented the Secretary
of the Air Force from canceling or modifying the AMP effort for
C-130 aircraft until 90 days after submission of a cost-benefit
analysis comparing the original C-130 AMP with a program that
would upgrade and modernize the legacy C-130 airlift fleet
using a reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning
systems. The Air Force submitted that report, but there were
questions about the assumptions and conclusions of the report.
For example, the original Air Force study also assumed life
cycle costs covering only 25 years.
Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) prevented the Air Force
from cancelling the AMP effort in fiscal year 2014 and directed
the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the
congressional defense committees a sufficiency review of the
cost benefit analysis in the Air Force study. The committee
received the Comptroller General's report which pointed out
that changes of fundamental assumptions in the report could
change the outcome of the analysis, including the assumed
length of time used for calculating life cycle costs savings.
The Air Force will be operating approximately 150 C-130H
aircraft for the foreseeable future, probably longer than the
25 years assumed in the Air Force study. The committee strongly
supports modernization of this legacy C-130 fleet, and
recommends an increase of $25.0 for procurement and
installation of C-130 AMP kits. In addition, the committee
directs the Air Force to obligate the fiscal year 2014 funds
authorized and appropriated for this program to conduct such
activities as are necessary to complete testing and transition
the program to production and installation of modernization
kits.
C-130 engines
The fiscal year 2015 budget request did not request funding
for making upgrades to C-130 engines.
The Air Force has flight tested a contractor-developed
upgrade to the current engine and determined that this upgrade
would result in fuel savings of 7.9 percent compared to
operating current engines. The Air Mobility Command (AMC)
performed a business case analysis of a potential upgrade
program for the C-130H fleet. AMC found that an investment of
$657.0 million would result in reduced maintenance and fuel
expenditures that would save $2.0 billion over the lives of
those aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $22.6 million to
procure and install engine upgrade kits for the C-130H fleet.
Lynx synthetic aperture radar
The budget request includes $30.0 million in PE 25219F,
line 66, in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for
procurement of upgrades to the Lynx synthetic aperture radar
(SAR) carried on the REAPER unmanned aerial system. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L.
113-66) eliminated funding for Lynx SAR retrofits on the
grounds that the rare use of this radar does not justify
substantial new investment. The committee is not aware of any
change in the utilization of the Lynx SAR in the field, and
therefore recommends a reduction of $30.0 million.
Small diameter bomb
The budget request included $70.6 million in Missile
Procurement, Air Force (MPAF) to buy 246 units of the Small
Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II).
The committee understands that there have been delays in
the Milestone C decision, and a resulting delay in awarding the
contract for fiscal year 2014 production. As it stands now, the
Air Force is likely to award the contract for the fiscal year
2014 production sometime during fiscal year 2015, and expects
that the contract will include provisions for awarding options
to the contract that would include for awarding the next option
on the contract during fiscal year 2016. This means that the
Air Force will not need additional production funds in fiscal
year 2015.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $52.5
million in this program.
General purpose bombs
The budget request included $177.2 million in Procurement
of Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) for general purpose bombs. The
committee recommends an increase of $8.8 million in PAAF for
general purpose bombs. The need for additional funding was
identified in the Commander of the United States Pacific
Command's unfunded priorities list.
Base information transportation infrastructure transfer
The budget request included $81.3 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force for information transport systems, and
$122.2 million in Other Procurement, Air Force for Air Force
Network (AFNET). To correct an error in the budget materials,
and at the request of the Air Force, the committee recommends a
transfer of $31.3 million from the AFNET account to the
information transport systems account for the purposes of
supporting base information transportation infrastructure.
Procurement of additional ICBM training equipment
The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained no funds for
the procurement of additional intercontinental ballistic
missile (ICBM) trainers at the 381st Training Group (TRG). This
lack of training equipment limits the availability of qualified
ICBM officers, which are in high demand. The committee
recommends $23.6 million to Other Procurement Air Force, Line
60, Base Procured Equipment for expansion of the 381st TRG
Missile Procedures Training Capability for Combat Mission
Readiness and to procure Computer Based Training/Rapid
Execution and Combat Targeting stand-alone trainers.
Defense-wide
MC-12 aircraft
The budget request includes $40.5 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide (PDW), for the modification of 24 MC-12 aircraft
being transferred from the Air Force to U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) to support the manned intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements of U.S.
Special Operations Forces. Elsewhere in this bill, the
committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the
transfer of these MC-12 aircraft from the Air Force to SOCOM
until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low-Intensity Conflict, in coordination with the Commander
of SOCOM, provides the congressional defense committees an
analysis and justification for such actions.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in PDW for
modification of MC-12 aircraft. As noted elsewhere in this
report, the recommended reduction does not apply to procurement
in support of SOCOM aviation foreign internal defense missions,
which are funded in a different budget line. Chemical, biol.
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
The budget request included $15.6 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide (PDW), for the acquisition and support of special
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of
special operations capabilities to, among other things,
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks
while avoiding collateral damage.
The committee understands that the budget request only
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $5.7 million in PDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs through the MQ-9 Medium
Altitude Long Endurance Tactical program of record utilizing
the Lead-Off Hitter rapid acquisition process. The committee
understands this process has successfully fielded MQ-9 UAV
capabilities at greatly reduced timelines when compared to
traditional acquisition processes and such capabilities have
significantly improved the accuracy and lethality of MQ-9 UAVs
in ``find, fix, and finish'' operations. The committee
encourages SOCOM to continue to look for other opportunities to
accelerate combat capability development through the Lead-Off
Hitter approach.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force KC-46A Pegasus procurement
The committee notes that the KC-46A Pegasus remains one of
the Department of Defense's most successful and important
acquisition programs. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force
described aerial refueling tankers as the lifeblood of the
Joint Force's ability to respond to crises and contingencies
around the world. The KC-46A will replace the Air Force's 1960s
era KC-135s and will significantly enhance our current
capability. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has
consistently stated that the KC-46 is the Air Force's highest
acquisition priority, and essential to the future of the Joint
Force.
The committee also notes that the development of the KC-
46As continues to meet its technical performance goals on time
and under budget. In April 2014, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) reported that the KC-46's development cost has
changed less than 1 percent since 2011, despite funding
reductions in fiscal year 2013 associated with the Budget
Control Act. Moreover, the aircraft's fixed price incentive
contract shifts liability for any future cost growth to the
contractor. This structure not only incentivizes the contractor
to cut costs in order to generate additional profits, it also
ensures maximum value for the government and the taxpayer. To
date, the Air Force reports it has saved $900.0 million in the
KC-46 Aircrew Training System and other program risk
adjustments compared to previous estimates.
The committee notes that disrupting this well-performing
program would negatively affect the ongoing development of the
KC-46s and our national security. The Air Force estimates that
reducing procurement from seven aircraft to six in fiscal year
2015 would yield near-term savings of $139.6 million. However,
the Air Force projects that this reduction in quantity would
adversely affect contractual cost factors over the life of the
program, ultimately increasing the cost to the taxpayer by more
than $640.0 million. A reduction would also impose severe risk
on the contractor's ability to meet its contractual requirement
to deliver 18 aircraft by August 2017. Also, the government
could risk losing the very favorable production pricing under
the KC-46 contract by not living up to the government's
responsibilities under the contract to provide resources
matched to contractor progress. In order to ensure the KC-46
program continues to meet is cost, schedule, and performance
objectives, and ultimately meet our national defense
requirements, the committee recommends fully funding the
President's request for procurement of seven KC-46 aircraft in
fiscal year 2015, and keeping the program on a stable funding
path.
Armored vehicle transmission industrial base
Over the last several years the committee has expressed its
concern for the management of strategic risk in the armored
vehicle industrial base. Strategic risk is that associated with
the permanent or temporary loss of either public depot or
private commercial industrial capability or capacity to repair
and upgrade the Nation's current fleets or develop and produce
the next generation of armored vehicles.
The committee notes that this risk is apparent in the
portion of the armored vehicle industrial base that designs,
develops, and produces transmissions. The committee is aware of
actions on the part of the Army to manage this risk through the
procurement of some armored vehicle transmissions in excess of
its usual repair parts supply and production requirements.
Buying extra transmissions, however, may not be a sustainable
risk management approach because of declining and uncertain
budgets.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army, or designee, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Policy, to conduct a business case analysis of the costs,
benefits, risks, feasibility, and advisability of strategies to
manage risk in the armored vehicle transmission industrial base
including, but not limited to, increased competition,
consolidation, or other industrial approaches across public
depot, private commercial, and public-private partnership
entities and facilities.
The results of this analysis shall be briefed to the
congressional defense committees by the Secretary, or designee,
not later April 30, 2015.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense
The budget request included $17.5 million in Other
Procurement, Army for chemical, biological, radiological and
nuclear (CBRN) defense but included no funding for personal
dosimeter systems.
The committee understands the Army has 10,000 personal
dosimeters in its inventory consisting of 2,000 dosimeters
purchased in 2013 and 8,000 dosimeters based on 1960s
technology and are no longer in production. Additionally, these
8,000 systems are unable to be repaired due to a lack of spare
parts. The committee is concerned that the Army may not have
kept pace with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
including nuclear weapons and material to state and non-state
actors.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a
report or briefing no later than March 15, 2015, on the
requirements and, if necessary, the plan to upgrade and/or
acquire personal dosimeter systems.
Combatant command intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
requirements
Demand for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(ISR) remains the number one shortfall identified by combatant
commanders. The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing a
number of initiatives to respond to these demands.
One of these approaches is applying open systems
architectures principles to current and new software systems.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, DOD is pursuing a number
of programs to provide new ISR capabilities through an open
systems architecture approach. This should provide DOD more
flexibility to adapt new payloads or capabilities to varying
environments and operational needs.
DOD is also modernizing and expanding ISR capabilities for
systems with longer ranges and endurance. Combatant commanders
frequently ask for systems with additional range and loiter
times to simplify their scheduling and administrative efforts
in providing on-station capability.
The committee believes that it is important that DOD remain
focused on its efforts to help simplify and reduce the costs of
meeting combatant commanders' ISR requirements.
Commercial aircraft used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) uses commercial
aircraft performing survey and mapping services. In the case of
some of these aircraft, the USACE contracts directly with the
private sector for use of the aircraft. In other cases, the
USACE uses the services of commercial aircraft that are on
retainer with the Air Force or the Navy. The committee is
concerned about recent Army blanket requirements for the USACE.
The committee is concerned about the issuance of new blanket
requirements for Army-contracted aircraft that do not apply to
those aircraft on retainer with the Air Force or the Navy.
These new requirements apparently include a requirement that
all commercial aircraft under Army contract be subject to
oversight by the Army's Program Executive Office for Aviation
(PEO-AVN) and require an Air Worthiness Release (AWR). The
committee has been made aware that the Army may not be applying
these new requirements to such aircraft on loan from the Air
Force or the Navy.
Such aircraft on contract to the USACE for survey and
mapping purposes were previously certified by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), since such aircraft are used for
inherently non-defense purposes. The committee believes that
the Army's requirement for a blanket AWR for aircraft already
certified by the FAA may not have a material impact on aircraft
air worthiness unless the Army were to make major modifications
to the aircraft or to make changes to the mission parameters.
Such specific changes would dictate a more stringent air
worthiness certification for these aircraft, but a blanket
requirement that all aircraft require an AWR could result in
unnecessary expenses for the taxpayer.
Therefore, the committee directs the Army and USACE to
provide the congressional defense committees a briefing on
contract aircraft operated by or for the USACE modifications
required to meet USACE missions, certification requirements for
such aircraft, and what value the Army receives from insisting
on an AWR for commercial aircraft performing for civil survey
and mapping functions.
Comptroller General of the United States review relating to remotely
piloted aircraft
Remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) are a critical capability
the Air Force provides to combatant commanders and in response
to growing mission demands, the Air Force has significantly
increased the number of RPA and associated personnel since
2008. However, the committee is concerned that the Air Force
has not adjusted policies to fully account for the high
operations tempo and unique operating environment that drive
the RPA enterprise requirements. A recent review by the
Comptroller General of the United States, ``Air Force: Actions
Needed to Strengthen Management of Unmanned Aerial Systems
Pilots; GAO-14-316,'' details some of these challenges. The
committee directs the Air Force to report to the committee no
later than September 30, 2014, on its efforts to implement the
first three Government Accountability Office recommendations
concerning its crew ratio, recruiting, and retention strategy.
Similar to units deploying to combat operations in
Afghanistan and the Middle East, Air Force RPA pilots operate
at a high operational tempo which constrains the time they have
to train for the entire spectrum of missions in which they are
required to maintain proficiency. Exacerbating this challenge,
available simulators do not adequately replicate the
environment of a RPA ground control station. Across the
Department of Defense (DOD), as much as 90 percent of training
for RPA-related personnel occurs as part of a combat operations
mission.
As combat operations wind down in Afghanistan, the DOD will
need to identify training opportunities to keep RPA personnel
proficient. Two of the biggest challenges will be RPA access to
military training airspace due to competition with other
military aviation requirements, and access to civilian
controlled airspace due to safety concerns. As RPA technology
advances and RPA mission areas expand, the committee is
concerned about DOD's ability to keep pace with these changes.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
review DOD's RPA training. The review should include, at a
minimum: (1) Challenges DOD faces in training RPA personnel;
(2) The extent to which DOD has planned for and taken steps to
mitigate those challenges; (3) The extent to which RPA units
are able to perform required missions; (4) The extent to which
DOD has access to the national airspace structure for RPA
training operations; and (5) Any other matters the Comptroller
General determines are appropriate during the review.
The Comptroller General shall submit the preliminary
results of the review to the congressional defense committees
no later than January 31, 2015, with a report to follow.
Distributed mission operations
The Air Force is providing its warfighters the ability to
train and operate in a realistic virtual environment using the
real-world operational systems they would use in an actual
combat situation under its distributed mission operations (DMO)
program. DMO training enables warfighters to simulate real
operations in a safe training environment at multiple levels of
classification and complexity without the concerns of range and
airspace restrictions. By using this DMO training, the Air
Force reduces flying hour costs, travel costs and other
operations and support costs.
The committee is concerned that the ability of Air Force to
field and connect DMO simulators broadly across the total Air
Force, as Air Force leadership would prefer, is being hampered
in this fiscally constrained environment. The committee needs
to understand the extent of these fielding problems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a plan that identifies current and planned
fielding of the DMO program across the total Air Force,
including locations and schedules for installation of DMO
simulators and associated equipment, current and future network
distribution and connectivity, and a funding plan that would
achieve full operational capability for DMO. The Secretary of
the Air Force should provide this plan to the congressional
defense committees not later than April 30, 2015.
Ejection seats
Section 146 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) directed the Secretary of
the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees
a report setting forth an assessment of the risks to the health
and safety of the members of the Armed Forces of the ejection
seats currently in operational use by the Air Force. The report
is due to the congressional committees no later than June 2014.
The committee looks forward to receiving that report. When
the report is completed, the committee believes that the
Secretary should develop a strategy to implement
recommendations from the study to improve the safety and
reliability of existing ejection seats in fighter and bomber
aircraft as soon as possible, to include requesting any funding
that may be needed in the fiscal year 2016 budget request.
Enhanced position location reporting system
The committee notes that the Army is modernizing its
tactical communications architecture, including divestment of
the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) between
fiscal years 2014 and 2017. The committee supports the Army's
plan to modernize its digital communications architecture and
understands that replacement of the EPLRS system with the
currently fielded more capable Blue Force Tracking System will
provide units with an improved interim capability. The
committee is aware that EPLRS will continue to be used in some
units outside of the Army and by some allies. Given this
potential mix of communications systems, the committee would be
interested to learn how the Army plans to mitigate any
operational impacts as it implements EPLRS divestment.
Accordingly, the Secretary of the Army shall provide the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate with a briefing that
outlines the potential interoperability risks, if any, for
units still equipped with EPLRS and its plans to mitigate those
risks.
Family of medium tactical vehicles
The budget request includes no funding in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the family of medium tactical
vehicles (FMTV). However, the committee notes that the Army
justification material for OPA included funding planned for
fiscal years 2017 and 2018. The committee urges the Army to
consider funding FMTV in the Oversea Contingency Operations
request in order to help bridge the fiscal year 2014 to fiscal
year 2017 funding gap.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
The budget request included $45.7 million in PE 65812A,
$11.5 million in PE 65812M, $164.6 million in Other
Procurement, Army, and $7.5 million in Procurement, Marine
Corps for research, development, and low rate initial
production (LRIP) of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).
The committee notes that, according to the Vice Chief of Staff
of the Army, General John Campbell, JLTV is the centerpiece of
the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle modernization strategy. The
committee further notes that fiscal year 2015 is a critically
important year for this program. Over the last 3 years, the
joint program office has been managing the development and
testing of prototype vehicles provided by three competing
tactical vehicle vendor teams. This competitive prototyping
acquisition strategy is consistent with the requirements of the
Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
23) and in 2015 will result in the selection of a single vendor
for award of a LRIP contract for up to 183 Army and Marine
Corps vehicles. The committee recommends full funding as
requested for JLTV and expects the program to remain on
schedule for its Milestone C decision in June 2015.
Joint Strike Fighter software development
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
rigorous assessment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's software
development program and report to the congressional defense
committees on the specific capabilities, to include combat
capabilities, to be delivered and those that will not likely be
delivered to each of the military Services by the date at which
the Service plans to declare initial operational capability.
The Secretary shall submit this report not later than May 1,
2015.
Light weight cartridge case and ammunition development
The committee remains encouraged by the Department of
Defense's efforts and multiple ongoing projects to decrease the
weight of cartridge cases and ammunition. The committee
understands that polymers have the potential to act as better
heat insulators, enabling the firing of more ammunition, and an
added benefit of cost savings and decreased weight compared to
conventional metal cartridge cases. The committee is also
encouraged by the ongoing research and potential for cased
telescoped ammunition which could decrease logistical weight by
at least 50 percent and bulk storage volume by at least 40
percent.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Department to conduct
the necessary logistical impact assessments to explore
additional efficiencies for light weight cartridge cases and
ammunition.
Lightweight robots
The committee is aware that the Army has developed and
fielded a variety of lightweight robots to conduct
reconnaissance, to counter improvised explosive devices, and
for other tactical uses by units deployed supporting overseas
contingency operations.
Over the years, the Army has rapidly acquired these
lightweight robots in response to theater operational needs
statements. The committee supports the continued research,
development, and acquisition (RDA) of lightweight robots to
support the Army's various tactical requirements.
The committee is interested to learn, however, how the Army
plans to transition lightweight robot RDA to a formal program
of record. A program of record appears necessary to sustain
momentum in the development of next generation lightweight
robots as well as identify and field technical improvements to
existing capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army, or designee, not later than September 30, 2014, to
provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services a briefing on
the Army's plans, if any, for creation of a RDA program of
record for lightweight tactical robots. The briefing should
include discussion of the development and schedule for the
review and approval of requirements documents necessary to
establish a RDA program of record. Also, the briefing should
include technology development and procurement schedules and
related funding profiles through the future years defense
program.
MH-60R helicopters
The budget request included $933.9 million to buy 29 MH-60R
helicopters and $106.7 million in advance procurement. The last
future years defense program (FYDP) indicated that the Navy
intended to buy 29 MH-60R helicopters in fiscal year 2016 to
fulfill the Navy's part of the last year of the Army's H-60
multiyear procurement contract. The latest FYDP projects that
the Navy will not buy any MH-60R helicopters in fiscal year
2016. Absent action to revise the fiscal year 2016 plan for the
Navy, or to apply additional resources to the Army procurement
effort, this action by the Navy would cause a government
default on the multiyear contract.
The Navy has planned to budget $250.0 million in fiscal
year 2016 to cover termination charges. However, the Navy
cannot assure the committee that this amount will cover all of
the Navy's early termination charges, nor have Navy officials
been able to specify what additional costs will fall on the
Army if the Navy were to fail to buy the 29 helicopters as
planned. At a minimum, the Army would be forced to renegotiate
the contract, which will probably delay deliveries and most
certainly increase unit costs.
The committee urges the Navy to reconsider this plan during
the development of the fiscal year 2016 budget. If the Navy
decides to opt out of the multiyear contract next year, the
committee expects the Secretary of the Navy to explain how this
aircraft reduction is related to the Navy's ship force
structure and whether the Navy will be able to meet its
requirements with a smaller number of MH-60R helicopters in the
future. In the meantime, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Navy, to develop a better estimate of the
likely effects if the Navy were to withdraw from the Army's H-
60 multiyear procurement contract in fiscal year 2016. The
Secretary of Defense should provide that analysis to the
congressional defense committees within 90 days.
Modular handgun
The committee is aware that the Army is in the process of
an open competition for a commercial off-the-shelf non-
developmental modular handgun that could result in the
replacement of its existing M9 pistol. The committee notes that
the Army has not replaced any of its current mix of small arms
in several years and is interested to know how the Army will
ensure the stability of the modular handgun program.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army, or designee, to provide the congressional defense
committees a briefing no later than March 1, 2015, that
describes the modernization strategy for its handgun
replacement program. The required briefing shall include a
description of requirements for the replacement modular handgun
and how the program's critical performance requirements are
linked to capabilities demonstrated in the small arms
marketplace. The briefing should also include relevant schedule
and funding profile information through the future years
defense program.
Report on the Navy's shipbuilding industrial base
In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee of this
committee, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development and Acquisition expressed concern about the
fragility of the Navy's shipbuilding industrial base. Other
Navy officials, including the Secretary of the Navy and the
Chief of Naval Operations have expressed similar concerns. The
committee shares these concerns and requests the Secretary of
the Navy, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics, provide a report
on the state of the Navy's shipbuilding industrial base not
later than February 1, 2015. The report should contain the
following:
(1) A comparison of shipyard capacities and capabilities
with projected shipbuilding workloads, and challenges this may
produce in coming years in terms of capacity utilization and
preservation of key design and construction skills.
(2) Investments the shipyards have made in recent years to
modernize their production facilities and to recruit, train,
and retain their workers, and any challenges the shipyards may
face in doing this in coming years.
(3) Investments the shipyards could make to achieve cost
reductions on Navy programs or to position the yards to survive
a number of years on reduced Navy orders.
(4) The shipyards' construction processes and methods, and
how these compare to best practices in shipyards around the
world.
(5) The prospects, by ship type, for using competition in
the design and construction of Navy ships in coming years.
(6) A comparison of supplier capacities and capabilities
with projected shipbuilding workloads, and challenges this may
produce in coming years in terms of capacity utilization and
preservation of key suppliers.
(7) A comparison of shipbuilding research and development
investments with projected shipbuilding workloads, and any
challenges that deficiencies in investment may produce in
future years in utilizing capacity, preserving of key skills,
and continuing innovation.
(8) An analysis of the risks to the shipbuilding industrial
base in the Navy's shipbuilding plan in the 2015 future years
defense program, and the risks to the industrial base if
Congress does not amend the Budget Control Act to increase
budget levels for the Department of Defense before fiscal year
2016.
(9) A comprehensive funding section that includes:
(a) An itemized listing of funds budgeted for support
of the shipbuilding industrial base. This is to include
all applicable Navy and Defense-wide appropriations.
Detail must be by fiscal year at the Appropriation,
line item/program element-project level with a
description of the effort. Detail should be provided
over the future years defense program and include up to
10 years of prior fiscal year actuals. This detailed
listing is to specifically include funding contained in
current shipbuilding programs (detail design/plans), as
well as the research and development funding for
preliminary and contract design program elements, and
any applicable science and technology funding, as well
as applicable funding from the Industrial Preparedness
and Manufacturing Technology programs.
(b) Any recommendations in the report for additional
funding should be identified at the same level of
detail as described in the subsection above.
(c) The report funding summary should also provide
information on applicable efforts from other related
agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, the
Maritime Administration, and the Coast Guard.
RQ-21 unmanned aerial systems
The budget request included $70.6 million to procure three
RQ-21A Blackjack unmanned aerial systems and to buy ancillary
support equipment and provide interim contractor logistics
support.
The committee recognizes that this is not a very economical
rate at which to buy the RQ-1A system and understands that the
Marine Corps may be seeking to move funds within the account to
add to the RQ-21A end item procurement plan.
If the Marine Corps can identify additional resources to
such a purpose, the committee would support buying more systems
under a buy-to-budget approach.
Solid state radar upgrades
The committee is aware that most current Navy radars use
1910s vacuum electronic devices technology and designs, such as
traveling wave tubes and cross-field amplifiers.
The committee also understands that corrective radar system
maintenance typically occurs only after a component or system
failure, or that components are proactively replaced to avoid
suffering lower operational readiness due to low mean time
between critical failure of the cross-field amplifier tube
technology. These failures can undercut readiness and reduce
the operational availability of naval vessels.
The committee notes that upgrading existing radars with
solid-state technology, such as components using gallium
nitride (GaN), may significantly improve performance and
reliability, as well as result in significant potential cost
savings over the life of the radar. The committee needs to
understand the potential of technology improvements to result
directly in increases in operational readiness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval
Research to provide an assessment to the congressional defense
committees, no later than September 30, 2014, that includes the
following:
(1) An inventory of current Navy radars, the
technology Navy radars utilize, and the reliability of
those radars;
(2) An assessment of the feasibility, advisability,
estimated costs, and potential performance benefits of
upgrading radars on current Navy vessels with solid-
state emitters that use solid state technology, such as
GaN;
(3) An assessment of ongoing efforts to prototype a
generic solid state emitter as a potential upgrade for
radars across Navy vessels.
Technical study and business case analysis of body armor plates
The Secretary of the Army shall conduct a technical study
and business case analysis on the requirements, cost, benefit,
feasibility, and advisability of the replacement and
refurbishment of the various body armor plates used in personal
protective equipment. The technical study will include an
identification and evaluation of environmental or other
conditions under which body armor plates will or could lose
their required protective performance or properties and an
identification and evaluation of the handling and storage for
body armor plates to ensure the most cost-effective shelf life
to retain the required protective performance properties. In
addition to the technical study, the business case analysis
will evaluate the full range of options for body armor
modernization and sustainment. An interim report shall be
submitted to the congressional defense committees not later
than March 1, 2015, and a final report submitted not later than
March 1, 2016.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation
activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division
D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Modification of authority for prizes for advanced technology
achievements (sec. 211)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to hold prize and
challenge competitions to spur advanced technology
achievements. The provision would give the Department of
Defense (DOD) more flexibility in selecting prize award sizes
to better match the awards to the technical challenge being
addressed.
Additionally, the provision would permit DOD to combine
funding with other federal, state, or local government funding
in order to leverage other resources to achieve goals of
interest to defense missions and priorities. Finally, the
provision would reduce the reporting requirement for the use of
the authority.
The March 2014 report to Congress on the prize authority
indicated that prizes ``have demonstrated the ability to
stimulate and incentivize a broad spectrum of individuals to
offer solutions to problems of significant interest to our
Nation's Warfighters.'' The Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, and Defense Threat Reduction
Agency have all successfully used prize competitions to develop
innovative approaches to address technology challenges.
Modification of Manufacturing Technology Program (sec. 212)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel which
coordinates manufacturing technology and research programs for
the Department of Defense should receive oversight from the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics or his designees. Further, the provision reduces the
frequency of mandated updates to the Manufacturing Technology
program's strategic plan, to better synchronize this effort
with the Quadrennial Defense Review process.
Limitation on retirement of Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar
Systems aircraft (sec. 213)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Air Force from retiring or preparing to retire operational
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
aircraft until the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report
to the congressional defense committees including an update of
the results of the analysis of alternatives (AoA) for
recapitalizing the current JSTARS capability; an analysis of
life cycle supports costs of maintaining the current fleet of
JSTARS aircraft versus replacing the current fleet JSTARS
aircraft with a new aircraft and radar system employing mature
technology; and an assessment of the cost and schedule of
developing and fielding a new aircraft and radar system
employing mature technology to replace the current JSTARS
aircraft.
The budget request included $73.1 million in PE 37581F for
developing a next generation system to replace the current
JSTARS aircraft. The Air Force conducted an AoA 3 years ago to
review options for modernizing the current E-8C JSTARS
capability. That AoA concluded that a combination of Global
Hawk Block 40 remotely piloted aircraft and a business class
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platform
was the least cost, highest performing alternative. The AoA
reported that a modern business jet outfitted with fourth
generation radar based on existing technology would be the
desired capability.
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force also informed the
committee 2 years ago that the Air Force could not afford to
pursue the business jet alternative when he said, ``We simply
don't have the resources.''
This year, the budget request proposes to retire six of the
current E-8C JSTARS aircraft in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, and
pursue a standard acquisition program and expend nearly $2.0
billion on a research and development program to develop and
integrate new capability onto existing business jet airframes.
This new radar and aircraft would not achieve initial
operational capability until fiscal year 2022.
The committee supports a rapid recapitalization program to
replace the Air Force's current JSTARS aircraft fleet.
However, the committee has concerns regarding the Air
Force's ability to complete that new program due to future
budget uncertainties. Given the importance of restoring the
capability lost by retiring E-8C aircraft in the near term, the
committee believes the Air Force should pursue an effort to
integrate existing technology onto an airframe, rather than
starting a new research effort to develop a new capability. The
committee believes the Air Force should be innovative in its
recapitalization approach by using modern, but existing,
components and technologies and that this should be an
integration effort rather than a research and development
effort.
Therefore, the committee denies the Air Force request to
initiate a a new major research and development program to
recapitalize the JSTARS fleet and instead recommends the Air
Force pursue a program that pursues integration of existing
systems and components onto commercially available airframes.
The committee recommends a total of $10.0 million to begin that
more modest integration and fielding effort.
Limitation on significant modifications of Army test and evaluation
capabilities (sec. 214)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of the Army and the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center to report on significant reductions or
consolidations of major test facilities.
Subtitle C--Reports
Study and reports on the technological superiority of the United States
military (sec. 221)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to task the Defense Science Board or other
independent group to examine the potential specific challenges
to U.S. military technological superiority within the next 10
years, and the specific planned responses by the Department of
Defense (DOD) to meet these challenges. The provision also
requires DOD to provide an interim report to the committee on
current acquisition and development programs, and policy
changes that are being undertaken in response to these
challenges.
The committee notes that Secretary of Defense Hagel has
indicated that ``the development and proliferation of more
advanced military technology by other nations means we are
entering an era where American dominance of the seas, in the
sky, and in space can no longer be taken for granted.''
Similarly, Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics Frank Kendall has indicated in public statements that
in terms of ``technological superiority, the Department of
Defense is being challenged in ways that I have not seen for
decades, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.''
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held
a classified briefing and a series of staff-level briefings in
order to better understand these developments and the DOD
responses to them. As a result of these briefings, the
committee is concerned that DOD has not adequately placed a
priority on providing resources to programs that can address
situations in which U.S. military capabilities will not be
technically superior to those which may be potentially fielded
by global peer adversaries. Further, the committee is concerned
that only minimal efforts have been made to redirect military
service and defense agency programs from legacy efforts into
new programs better aligned to meet these near term emerging
threats.
Reduction in frequency of reporting by Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Systems Engineering (sec. 222)
The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the
reporting requirement related to the systems engineering
activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
committee believes this reduction will save resources for use
in technical systems engineering work which can lead to system
performance enhancements and acquisition cost savings. The
committee notes the critical importance of effective systems
engineering capabilities and activities in the development and
deployment of complex technical systems. The committee expects
that the Secretary of Defense will continue to keep Congress
informed of systems engineering activities of interest upon
request.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Pilot program on assignment to Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency of private sector personnel with critical research and
development expertise (sec. 231)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) to carry out a pilot program to employ up to five
individuals employed by the private sector on rotational
assignments to lead research or development projects of the
Agency. The committee believes that this authority will allow
DARPA to leverage the considerable talent that resides in
industry in key technical areas, including cybersecurity,
robotics, cloud computing, and biotechnology, where
technological leadership often is resident outside the
government. The committee notes that this pilot program is
modeled on the successful Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA)
Mobility Program which has been used successfully by federal
agencies to exchange specialized personnel with state and local
governments, academia, national labs, and other not-for-profit
organizations. The committee understands that the Department of
Defense has established procedures for monitoring and
controlling salaries and expenses for the IPA program,
including a limitation on salaries that may be paid or
reimbursed for IPAs, and expects that such constraints will be
applied to the pilot authorized by this provision.
Pilot program on enhancement of preparation of dependents of members of
Armed Forces for careers in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (sec. 232)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
pilot program to enhance the science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) educational opportunities for children
of servicemembers. The committee believes that the Department
of Defense (DOD) has a unique responsibility for the well-being
of military children. These children are faced with a unique
set of pressures and challenges relative to their peers,
including the stresses of parental deployments and frequent
relocations due to changes of duty station. Any successful
effort to improve the quality of STEM education for military
children would benefit both the children and their
servicemember parents, but also help strengthen the pipeline of
future personnel into civilian and military positions into DOD.
The committee notes that (DOD) has a set of educational
outreach programs and assets, largely managed by the DOD
Educational Activity (DODEA) and science and technology
organizations, which could be leveraged to create effective
engagements with military children and help improve their STEM
educational experiences. The committee recommends that the
Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and
the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness work in
partnership to develop activities under this program.
Activities could include internships at defense laboratories,
teacher training, curriculum enhancements, or other programs
designed to address the challenges facing military children.
The committee notes that the Department could also leverage
research and development funding, including through the Small
Business Innovation Research program, to develop new
technologies and practices supportive of the goals of the pilot
program.
The committee directs that any educational activities
undertaken through this pilot program only be established with
metrics that can be used to evaluate the merits and benefits of
such activities. The activities should also be closely
coordinated with STEM educational activities in the private
sector, state and local organizations, and other federal
agencies to ensure use of best educational practices, and to
limit duplication of efforts.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an
additional authorization of funding to support some of the
activities authorized by this provision.
Modification to requirement for contractor cost-sharing in pilot
program to include technology protection features during
research and development of certain defense systems (sec. 233)
The committee recommends a provision, requested by the
Department of Defense, that would modify the cost-sharing
provision of section 243 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
The underlying provision requires industry to bear a fixed
portion of the cost for the development of features which could
enable the exportability of systems, including measures to
prevent tampering with export versions of major defense
equipment. The recommended provision would allow the Department
of Defense to adjust the cost-share requirement for industry
partners to levels appropriate for the particular project.
Budget Items
University research initiatives
The budget request included $69.8 million in PE 61103A,
$113.9 million in PE 61103N, and $127.1 million in PE 61103F
for university research initiatives. The committee notes that
the overall basic research program in the budget request has
been reduced by roughly $150 million, or 7 percent, relative to
the fiscal year 2014 requested level. In testimony to the
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, the Acting
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
testified that this would lead to a reduction of between 1,500
to 2,000 grants to university faculty and students.
The committee notes that basic research activities focused
in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense
missions lay the foundation upon which other technology
development and new defense systems are built. These programs
fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government
laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the
next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on
defense technology problems in government, industry, and
academia.
To help address the significant reduction in basic research
funding in the request, the committee recommends an increase of
$20.0 million in PE 61103A, $20.0 million in PE 61103N, and
$20.0 million in PE 61103F. The committee directs that these
funds be awarded through the well-established and competitive
Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative process. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
to the congressional defense committees on the plan to spend
these additional resources no later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act.
Indirect fire protection capability
The budget request included $96.2 million in PE 64319A for
indirect fire protection capability. Due to program delays some
of the funds requested are early to need, therefore, the
committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in PE 64319A
for the indirect fire capability.
Infantry support weapons
The budget request included $27.9 million in PE 64601A for
infantry support weapons of which $7.8 million would be for the
XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system. The XM25
is a grenade launcher firing a 25mm projectile selectively
programmed to detonate in the air at a designated range.
The committee notes that the Army has invested $183.2
million in development, procurement, and assessment of the XM25
between December 2010 and August 2013. Prototypes of this
weapon were acquired, initially tested for safety, and deployed
to Afghanistan for a forward operational assessment.
Malfunctions during this assessment, and during subsequent
testing, have raised questions about the system's safety,
reliability, and effectiveness. A March 2014 report by the
Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) identified
cost, performance, and schedule issues with the system.
According to the DOD IG, reliability issues discovered during
and after operational assessment have resulted in a program
delay of over 2 years, cost growth for technical development
and corrections, and Army program evaluators question the
weapon's lethality. The program is delayed pending resolution
of weapon function and munition effectiveness testing.
Due to the availability of unobligated prior year funds,
the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in PE
64601A only for the XM25 counter defilade target engagement
weapon system. Furthermore, given the reliability and
effectiveness issues discovered in development and testing of
the weapon and munition, the committee designates as a
congressional interest item the XM25 counter defilade target
engagement weapon system, or any of its derivative weapons or
ammunition development or procurement programs, projects, or
activities.
Kwajalein Atoll Reagan Test Site space situational awareness operations
support
The budget included $176.0 million for PE 0605301A for Army
Kwajalein Atoll. The committee recommends an increase by $11.0
million to meet a U.S. Strategic Command unfunded requirement
for space situational awareness operations support.
Marine Corps assault vehicles
The budget request included $105.7 million in PE 63611M for
Marine Corps assault vehicles. At the request of the Marine
Corps, the committee recommends a decrease of $52.0 million in
PE 63611M for the new amphibious vehicle project.
Also, at the request of the Marine Corps, the committee
recommends the following increases:
(1) $45.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy for Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) service life
extension; and
(2) $7.0 million in PE 24413N for surface connector
research and LCAC stern ramp testing.
Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development
The budget request included $202.9 million in PE 64786N for
developing an offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) weapon.
This follows on an enacted funding level of $91.0 million in
fiscal year 2013. The Navy hopes to use these funds to mature
the development of a science and technology development effort
of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that
is seeking to demonstrate a variant of the Joint Air-to-Surface
Standoff Missile (JASSM) in an anti-ship mission set. DARPA has
called this variant the Long Range Anti-ship Missile, or LRASM.
In fiscal year 2013, the Navy had planned to release a
request for proposal, award one or more competitive prototyping
contracts, and establish a government program office team.
In fiscal year 2014, it became clear that the Navy planned
to adopt the DARPA LRASM program without competition and to
continue development of that missile, leading to fielding of an
air-launched version (increment 1) and surface-launched version
(increment 2) of LRASM missiles to be delivered initially by B-
1 bombers or F/A-18 strike fighters. The Senate report
accompanying S. 1197 (S. Rept. 113-44) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 directed the Navy to
present a plan that would pursue a more competitive approach,
yield a program proceeding to a technology readiness level 6
before deciding on a particular technical solution.
For fiscal year 2015, the Navy plan would continue that
same non-competitive approach, but would field only a limited
number of the air-launched version of the missile. The budget
request and the future years defense program (FYDP) envision
spending roughly $1.5 billion to acquire roughly 110 missiles.
The committee is concerned that this program was created to
respond to an urgent combatant commander need, but was done so
with insufficient analyses of other available alternatives, and
with insufficient regard for the costs of locking in a long-
term commitment under a non-competitive program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $202.9
million for the OASuW program in fiscal year 2015, and directs
the Navy to use available funds to conduct more thorough
analyses of alternatives for meeting combatant commander needs.
Integrated Personnel and Pay System
The budget request included $90.2 million in PE 65018F for
the Air Force integrated personnel and pay system. The
committee notes that a planned contract award for development
of an integrated pay system largely based on commercial
software has been delayed by two fiscal quarters, relative to
the program schedule and associated funding plan proposed in
the budget request. As a result, the committee recommends a
reduction of $30.0 million to this program.
F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System
The budget request included $68.9 million in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force for the F-15 Eagle
Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS).
EPAWSS is expected to significantly improve the F-15's
capability to autonomously and automatically detect, identify
and locate radio frequency threats, as well as provide the
ability to defeat radio frequency, electro-optical, and
infrared threat systems.
The Air Force plans for fiscal year 2015 to award a pre-
engineering and manufacturing development (pre-EMD) contract
and prepare for awarding a full EMD contract in late fiscal
year 2016. This program plan includes a schedule slip of
roughly 15 months since last year's plan. This was due in part
to a delay of a year in the analysis of alternatives for
EPAWSS.
The committee understands that there have been additional
delays in the schedule since the Air Force submitted the budget
request, and recommends a reduction of $19.5 million to reflect
that delay.
Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload
The budget request includes $30.7 million in PE 34260F for
development of the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload 2C
(ASIP-2C) for the REAPER unmanned aerial system. The Air Force
has decided to sustain other signals intelligence capabilities
on the REAPER in lieu of the ASIP-2C and does not require these
funds. The committee recommends a reduction of $30.7 million.
Network Centric Collaborative Targeting
The budget request included $8.8 million in PE 35221F for
Research and Development (R&D) for the Network-Centric
Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) program. The budget request also
included $3.0 million in line 14 of Other Procurement, Air
Force (OPAF) for NCCT procurement. The committee has long
supported the goal of building a capability to create a
tracking and targeting network across all of the major airborne
intelligence collection platforms, and all sensor types
(visible imagery, infrared/spectral imagery, synthetic aperture
radar, moving target indicator radar, and all forms of signals
intelligence (SIGINT) sensors), utilizing machine-to-machine
tipping and cueing. However, the intelligence components
supporting our military forces have never been willing to
organize around this concept.
The NCCT technology, architecture, and concept of
operations were developed a long time ago, but the relevant
program offices have not been willing to implement them. The
committee reluctantly concludes that it is time to try
different approaches to this worthy goal.
The intelligence community is now pursuing the concept
known as activity-based intelligence (ABI), which involves
inter alia layering or integrating geo-referenced data and
metadata from any and all sources about places, events, and
activity. It is anticipated that ABI will enable target
discovery, correlation, patterns of activity, and cues or tips
for further collection.
The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is investigating
technology and processes for automated, machine-based tipping
and cueing across programs and sensor types that it hopes to
persuade its mission partners to adopt to support the ABI
concept. The Joint Staff is conducting studies of methods and
means to use integrated sensor collection operations to track
mobile, strategically important targets.
The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) is developing
advanced technology for machine-to-machine networking that can
support tipping and cueing and other coordinated operations for
unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and manned platforms alike under
the UAS Command and Control Initiative, Common Mission Control
Center, and Open Mission Systems programs.
The Navy is developing advanced machine-to-machine tipping
and cueing capabilities under the Minotaur initiative.
Minotaur's goals are to detect, locate, and track targets
either on the ground, at sea, or in the air. Minotaur is now or
soon will be in operation on airborne platforms of the Navy,
Coast Guard, SOCOM, and Customs and Border Patrol.
These initiatives appear to be more promising than NCCT in
ultimately achieving the original goals of the NCCT program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $8.8
million from the R&D request, and $3.0 million from the
procurement request. The committee strongly encourages the Air
Force RCO and the Navy Minotaur programs to collaborate with
each other and the NRO.
Cross-program, cross-agency, cross-service, cross-sensor
networking, and cooperative operations are essential to modern
military operations in large-scale conventional warfare and in
irregular warfare and man-hunting operations. However, this
goal will require cultural and organizational changes, as well
as technological innovation. Just as the military learned how
to conduct joint operations after Goldwater-Nichols, the
intelligence community at the national and tactical levels must
begin to practice jointness in the tasking of collection and
the exploitation and analyses of collected data.
The committee directs the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, and requests the Deputy Director of National
Intelligence for Intelligence Integration, to jointly conduct
an assessment of the utility of fully integrating the
operations of the tasking organizations for imagery collection
and signals intelligence at the national level and within the
service Distributed Common Ground Systems and Command Joint
Intelligence Operations Centers. This assessment shall be
briefed to the congressional defense and intelligence
committees by June 1, 2015.
Logistics information technology
The budget request included $109.7 million in PE 78610F for
the Air Force Logistics Information Technology (LOGIT) program.
The committee recommends a reduction of $12.5 million to this
program. The committee notes that LOGIT is intended to
partially replace the planned Expeditionary Combat Support
System (ECSS) program, which was terminated. The committee
notes that two Department of Defense (DOD) analyses of the
failure of the ECSS program, the ``ECSS Acquisition Incident
Team Final Report'' and the ``Root Cause Analysis of the ECSS
Program Report,'' both highlighted a number of issues that led
to the program's failure. These included: an unclear process
for coupling business process changes to planned technology
changes; poor program management by government and industry
personnel; unrealistic program timelines and expectations; and
a lack of senior management attention to program challenges.
The committee is concerned that these and other issues that
plagued the ECSS program have not been adequately remedied in
the LOGIT program. Therefore, the committee directs the DOD
Chief Information Officer, jointly with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the
Secretary of the Air Force, to provide for an independent
assessment of the current acquisition and test strategy,
funding plan, goals, and schedule of the LOGIT program. The
study's focus should be to determine if the lessons of the ECSS
program have been adequately incorporated into the LOGIT
program. The study should clearly identify specific activities
and processes that represent changes in the planning and
execution of the LOGIT program as compared to the ECSS program,
and are based on an understanding and analysis of that
program's deficiencies. Further, the report should make
recommendations on improvements to the LOGIT program strategy
and execution, or on specific actions the program should take,
to improve acquisition program outcomes. The committee directs
that the independent study team be provided access to all
records, data, and other relevant information as needed to
develop the required study. The committee directs that the
study be provided to the congressional defense committees no
later than March 1, 2015.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs
The budget request included $2.91 billion for the research
and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). The committee commends DARPA on its
efforts to support high risk, high payoff research programs
that often can introduce revolutionary capabilities into the
technology development programs of Services and agencies. When
well-coordinated with Service efforts, DARPA programs often
result in significantly enhanced operational capabilities. To
support these efforts, the committee recommends two provisions
elsewhere in this report which attempt to enhance the quality
of DARPA's technical personnel.
The committee notes that funding for DARPA was increased in
the fiscal year 2015 budget request, at a time when the overall
science and technology program was decreased relative to fiscal
year 2014 levels. Further, the request included a decrease of
over $150 million in basic research programs at universities,
small businesses, and government laboratories.
Therefore, the committee recommends that DARPA shift its
investments to support increased efforts in basic research that
engage universities and other research communities in the
unique programs managed by DARPA and recommends an increase of
$20.0 million in PE 61101E for this purpose. The committee
recommends that DARPA consider funding efforts that engage a
broader set of researchers, including those from non-
traditional defense contractors, universities, Department of
Defense (DOD) laboratories, and small businesses, in
partnership with other funded DARPA initiatives. For example,
the committee believes that DARPA-managed basic research
activities in cybersecurity, robotics, development of systems
engineering and software development tools, advanced learning
and training technologies, and modeling and simulation would be
of great benefit to supporting the achievement of DOD research
and development goals. The committee also believes that DARPA
is best enabled to engage the basic research community in
addressing fundamental science challenges underlying efforts to
develop new systems to address anti-access/area denial
capabilities of potential adversaries. The committee directs
DARPA to provide the congressional defense committees with a
plan for execution of these funds no later than 180 days after
the enactment of this Act. The committee reaffirms the
requirement by law that all such funding be allocated on the
basis of a merit-based selection, pursuant to a broad agency
announcement or similar competitive process.
The committee further recommends a reduction of $20.0
million in PE 63766E. The committee recommends reducing funding
for the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System, which has
been funded at DARPA for over 10 years, with over $200 million
expended to date. This program history is inconsistent with the
traditional DARPA model of successfully proving the technical
feasibility and military value of disruptive, innovative
technologies in shorter periods of time. The program still has
no identified commitments for a transition pathway to a Service
program for further development, and seems to have a low
probability of transition, even if current technical challenges
are overcome.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for
military children
The budget request included $45.5 million in PE 61120D8Z
for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP), but no
funding for pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (PK-12)
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
education activities, which have been traditionally funded at
approximately $10.0 million per year. In support of a provision
described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an
additional $10.0 million for support of activities that enhance
the STEM educational opportunities for military children. The
committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all such
funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based selection,
pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar competitive
process.
The committee notes that the NDEP has historically funded
three activities related to STEM education: (1) The Science,
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART)
scholarship program, established in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 108-375);
(2) the National Security Science and Engineering Faculty
Fellowship (NSSEFF); and (3) PK-12 STEM education activities.
In the fiscal years 2014 and 2015 President's budget requests,
in response to an administration initiative to consolidate STEM
educational activities, the NDEP's PK-12 STEM education program
was terminated, with much of the funding transferred to the
NSSEFF. The committee notes that the Department of Defense
(DOD) has a unique responsibility for the well-being of
military children and responsibility to their servicemember
parents, and believes that DOD is well-positioned to help
enhance their STEM educational opportunities.
The budget request included $44.6 million in PE 61110D8Z
for Basic Research Initiatives. The committee recommends a
reduction of $10.0 million for the NSSEFF program to return the
program back to historical funding levels.
Historically black colleges and universities and minority serving
institutions
The budget request included $24.4 million in PE 61228D8Z to
support basic research at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Minority Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI). The
committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to support
activities that enhance efforts to increase the numbers of
HBCU/MI students and graduates working in defense laboratories
and defense industry; increase the number of research
partnerships established between HBCU/MI research staff and
faculty and their counterparts in government laboratories,
industry, and academia; support the development of advanced
research infrastructure at HBCU/MI schools, especially
facilities that can be leveraged by other research
universities; and increase the number of undergraduates funded
who graduated with degrees in STEM fields and who will continue
to pursue graduate degrees in STEM fields. The committee
reaffirms the requirement by law that all such funding be
allocated on the basis of a merit-based selection, pursuant to
a broad agency announcement or similar competitive process.
The committee notes that this program had been historically
funded at a level of approximately $35.0 million per year, but
was reduced without sufficient justification. In testimony to
the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities,
witnesses highlighted the value of this program in performing
valuable basic research, as well as in training the next
generation of scientists and engineers who may work in defense
laboratories or defense industry.
Applied research for the advancement of science and technology
The budget request included $42.0 million in PE 62251D8Z
for applied research for the advancement of science and
technology priorities. The committee recommends a decrease of
$10.0 million.
Office of the Secretary of Defense Cyber Security Research
The budget request included $15.0 million in PE 62668D8Z
for Cyber Security Research. The committee is concerned that
the proliferation of cyber security research programs in the
Department of Defense (DOD), intelligence community, and other
federal agencies, both in classified and unclassified programs,
has created inefficient redundancy and duplication of efforts.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million
in PE 62668D8Z. Further, the committee directs that this
program prioritize investment in activities that support
research by university centers, small businesses, and non-
traditional defense contractors, so as to help promote a
diversity of innovative concepts and ideas into the set of
programs striving to address DOD and national cyber security
challenges.
Foreign technology testing
The budget request included $30.0 million in PE 63133D8Z
for comparative testing of foreign technologies. The committee
recommends a reduction of $10.0 million in this program to
reduce growth. The committee directs that efforts under this
program reflect testing of technologies in the advanced
technology development stage, given the realignment of this
account into the defense science and technology budget.
Further, the committee notes that the Department of Defense
should invest similar resources in programs that ensure that
domestically-produced technologies which may provide superior
capabilities to existing or developmental systems are
comparatively evaluated and develop policies to ensure that if
appropriate, these technologies are adopted.
Science and technology analytic assessments
The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63288D8Z
for science and technology analytic assessments, $60.0 million
in PE 63289D8Z for advanced innovative analysis and concepts,
and $4.9 million in PE 65798D8Z for defense technology
analyses. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million
in PE 63288D8Z, a reduction of $15.0 million in PE 63289D8Z,
and a reduction of $4.75 million in PE 65798D8Z for these
efforts. The committee supports analyses that can better inform
research and technology efforts that will address Department of
Defense concerns related to a reduction in military
technological superiority of global peers, but notes that
robust funding in program offices, military services and
defense agencies, and in federally funded research and
development centers can be used for these purposes.
Concept and technology demonstrations
The budget request included $132.0 million in PE 63648D8Z
for the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD)
program. The committee is concerned over the limited transition
success rate of past JCTD programs and recommends that the
Department of Defense focus efforts on a smaller number of
programs which represent revolutionary and disruptive
technology capabilities and operational concepts that would
otherwise not be funded in service development and acquisition
programs. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of
$20.0 million in this program to reduce the number of new-start
efforts.
Advanced sensor applications program
The budget request included $15.5 million in PE 63714D8Z
for the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This
represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal year
2014 of $19.2 million.
The committee believes that this reduction will cause the
program to postpone important testing and experiments. The
committee believes that these efforts are too important to
postpone or cancel, and therefore, recommends an increase of
$4.0 million for ASAP.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system
The budget request included $299.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, PE 63881C, for
continued development of the Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) system, including for development of the THAAD
2.0 concept. The committee believes the concept for the THAAD
2.0 is not sufficiently defined to warrant the level of funding
requested. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of
$15.0 million in PE 63881C for development of THAAD 2.0 as
early to need.
Ground-based Midcourse Defense reliability and maintenance funding
The budget included $1.0 billion in Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63882C, for the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system that provides homeland
ballistic missile defense. However, the committee is aware that
a recent independent assessment of the GMD system indicated
that a number of important reliability and maintenance
functions are not included in the current GMD program of
record. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$30.0 million in PE 63882C for the following activities: (1)
Failure mitigation actions and upgrades for the Capability
Enhancement II Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle; (2) Upgrades to
the Command Launch Equipment and the GMD Fire Control System;
and (3) Improvements to the GMD Stockpile Reliability Program,
including rocket motor life assessments.
The committee believes these are necessary functions for
the GMD program to work effectively and be sustainable for the
planned life of the system. Therefore, the committee directs
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to develop a plan for
executing these funds, and for completing the remainder of the
work required to accomplish these functions within the GMD
program of record. The committee further directs the Director
of MDA to report to the congressional defense committees on
this plan by no later than November 15, 2014. As part of this
planning process, the committee expects MDA to consider the
full range of funding options, including re-prioritization of
funds, reprogramming actions, and adjustments to budget plans
for fiscal year 2016.
Funding for Iron Dome and U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense
programs
The budget request included $96.8 million in PE 63913C for
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for U.S.-Israeli cooperative
missile defense programs, including $10.7 million to improve
the existing Arrow Weapon System; $54.4 million for continued
development of the Arrow-3 upper tier interceptor missile; and
$31.7 million for continued co-development of the David's Sling
short-range ballistic missile defense system. These systems are
part of Israel's layered defenses against missiles and rockets
of varying ranges, from longer-range missiles from Iran or
Syria, to short-range missiles and large-caliber rockets such
as those fired from Lebanese territory, to the very short-range
rockets and artillery fired from Gaza. The United States is
jointly developing and co-managing these systems to ensure they
are compatible and interoperable with U.S. missile defense
systems.
The budget request also included $175.9 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide for the MDA, for Israel to procure
additional Iron Dome short-range rocket defense systems,
including co-production of Iron Dome parts and components in
the United States by U.S. industry in accordance with the U.S.-
Israel Iron Dome production agreement signed on March 15, 2014.
The Iron Dome system, which was developed by Israel, proved
highly effective at defending against hundreds of short-range
rockets launched from Gaza in 2012, and has been provided
Israel with an alternative to launching large-scale military
offensives to counter such rocket attacks.
The Government of Israel has requested an additional $175.0
million for Iron Dome in fiscal year 2015. The committee is
supportive of the Iron Dome program and is aware that short-
range rocket attacks are a continuing threat to Israel's
security. The committee also supports the three cooperative
missile defense programs, and recognizes that Israel may
determine that it is a higher national security priority to use
additional funding for these programs, given the continuing
threat of rockets and missiles that could be launched from
Iran, Syria, and from Lebanese territory.
Therefore, as provided in a legislative provision described
elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an increase
of $175.0 million in PE 63913C for Israel to produce Iron Dome
systems, including co-production of Iron Dome parts and
components in the United States by U.S. industry, in accordance
with the terms, conditions, and co-production targets for
fiscal year 2015 in the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome production
agreement. However, if Israel determines that it would be a
higher priority for its national security, it may use part or
all of the additional $175.0 million for the three U.S.-Israeli
cooperative missile defense programs: the Arrow System
Improvement Program; the Arrow-3 upper tier interceptor missile
development program; and the David's Sling short-range
ballistic missile defense system.
Corrosion control and prevention funding increase
The budget request included $6.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Advanced
Component Development & Prototypes, of which $2.9 million was
for the Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion Program.
The committee continues to be concerned that DOD has
consistently underfunded the Corrosion Program since fiscal
year 2011. DOD estimates that the negative effects of corrosion
cost approximately $20.8 billion annually to prevent and
mitigate corrosion of its assets, including military equipment,
weapons, facilities, and other infrastructure.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, line 101, PE 0604016D8Z, for the DOD
Corrosion Program.
Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) has been funded at decreasing
levels over the last few fiscal years, dropping from a high of
$439.0 million in fiscal year 2011, to $175.0 million in fiscal
year 2014. The committee recommends an authorization of $75.0
million in PE 64775D8Z to continue activities under this
program. This decrease from previous levels of authorization
reflects the need for the DOD and the Government Accountability
Office to complete reviews of the program and its
effectiveness, while balancing the need to maintain the program
continuity and maintaining engagement with industry and
acquisition program offices. The committee notes that the DOD
has increased the number of organizations participating in the
program, while streamlining management processes, enabling
earlier solicitation of proposals from small businesses and
other potential contractors. The committee further notes that
preliminary evaluation of program results have identified a
number of RIP-funded technologies which have transitioned into
acquisition programs.
The RIP is a competitive, merit-based program established
by section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
that is designed to fund innovative technologies, reduce
acquisition or life-cycle costs, address technical risks,
improve the timeliness of test and evaluation outcomes, and
rapidly insert technologies needed to meet critical national
security needs. The committee notes that $175.0 million was
appropriated for the RIP in the DOD Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-6); however, no funds were
requested in the budget request for fiscal year 2015.
In the 3 fiscal years during which the program has been
executed, 17 defense components (including U.S. Special
Operations Command, the military services, the Missile Defense
Agency, U.S. Transportation Command, and others) have used the
additional funding through 12 different open calls for industry
proposals. The competitions resulted in over 8,600 technology-
concept white papers and over 500 full proposals for funding,
which were evaluated for their responsiveness to defense
technology requirements and their ability to effectively
transition technologies to acquisition program offices, depots,
logistics, contractors, or other relevant organizations.
Investments in the program have prioritized proposals that have
the ability to: deliver nearer-term emerging technologies to
current military operations in areas such as electronic
warfare, cybersecurity tools, robotics, and dismounted force
protection; contribute to breakthrough technologies for future
military capabilities in areas such as countering weapons of
mass destruction, space systems, and hypersonics; or improve
the affordability of defense operations through technologies
that reduce the cost of energy and other logistical items or
increase interoperability across platforms and systems.
Through this rigorous process, in fiscal years 2011 and
2012, 263 awards of less than $3.0 million each were made to
innovative companies, over 90 percent of which were made to
small businesses, and a majority of which leveraged previous
investments made by the Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) program. DOD estimates that 90 to 100 projects will be
awarded through the fiscal year 2013 competitive process.
Successful projects to date include, but are not limited to:
enhanced ground vehicle protection, lightweight ground fire
detection systems for combat outposts, automated intelligent
training systems, low cost missile launchers, advanced body
armor, and intrusion detection systems for port security
missions.
DOD has reported that the program has increased the
effectiveness of technology development activities in a number
of ways, including: allowing acquisition program managers to
have the flexibility to develop, test, and possibly incorporate
higher performance and lower cost capabilities into programs
that traditionally are unable to fund or evaluate disruptive
and novel technologies; creating competitive pressures on
existing defense contractors through the potential introduction
of new technologies; enhancing the return on investment on the
roughly $1.0 billion DOD SBIR program; and providing a new
avenue for commercial industry, small businesses, and other
non-traditional contractors to develop solutions to defense
technology challenges.
The committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all
such funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based
selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar
competitive process. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to continue to refine and enhance program management
and industry engagement practices to maximize the ability of
the RIP to deliver new technologies to acquisition programs and
operational units that would otherwise not be funded or
evaluated, given resource constraints and traditional program
management processes.
Chemical and Biological Defense Program under-execution
The budget request included $345.9 million in PE 64384BP
for the Chemical and Biological Defense Program engineering and
manufacturing development. The committee notes that this
program funding line received an increase of $158.0 million--
nearly 60 percent--from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2014,
and with this substantial increase the program execution rate
for the fiscal year 2014 funds is slower than expected.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0
million for PE 64384BP for prior year under-execution delays.
Combatant Command exercise engagement and training transformation
funding decrease
The budget request included $887.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for RDT&E Management
Support, of which $44.0 million was for Combatant Command
Exercise Engagement and Training Transformation (CE2T2).
The committee is concerned that historical under-execution
has occurred in the CE2T2 program with respect to the
percentage of validated combatant command joint exercise
transportation requirements executed in support of the joint
exercise training program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0
million in RDT&E, line 174, Program Element 0804767D8Z, for
CE2T2.
Sharkseer zero-day cybersecurity program
The budget request included $125.9 million for research and
development (R&D) for the National Security Agency's (NSA)
Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in PE 33140G,
conducted by the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD).
The budget request includes no funds in fiscal year 2015
for the Sharkseer program. Sharkseer has been funded in
previous years at the direction of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO) and has been identified by the CIO as
among the highest priority cybersecurity initiatives under its
purview. The committee is informed that the CIO intends in
future budget submissions to transition this initiative to a
permanent program of record. Sharkseer is the first concerted
attempt by the Department of Defense (DOD) to buy advanced
commercial technology to defend DOD networks against cyber
attacks that have not been seen before--for which no signatures
are available to block against. These attacks, popularly called
zero-day attacks, are increasingly prevalent as adversaries
employ simple morphing techniques to mask the appearance of
malware that is already well-known.
The first generation of commercial products for enterprise-
level zero-day detection and response capabilities that the
Sharkseer program office has assembled has been deployed to a
DOD Internet Access Point (IAP) for demonstration and testing.
By all accounts, it has performed very well. Funds on hand,
authorized and appropriated in prior years, are sufficient to
deploy these capabilities operationally to three IAPs. Neither
NSA nor the Defense Information Systems Agency has followed
through to make funding available to deploy this capability to
all the other IAPs, or for beginning work with other vendors on
next-generation capabilities, or to extend capabilities to
hosts.
The committee recommends an additional $30.0 million for
Sharkseer to extend deployments to additional IAPs and further
develop a closed-cycle concept of operations and technical
capabilities to quickly translate detections at network
boundaries into blockable signatures, rapidly disseminate them,
and directly interact in near real-time with endpoints/hosts.
The committee expects the newly forming Cyber Protection Teams
to rely heavily on Sharkseer tools and capabilities.
The committee encourages the CIO to establish Sharkseer as
a sustained activity to procure innovative commercial
cybersecurity products and to refresh them with new products
and capabilities in the same way that the DOD routinely
programs funds for technology refresh on network equipment like
routers, switches, and load balancers.
Defense Information Systems Agency cybersecurity research and
development
The budget request included $3.2 million in PE 35103K for
research and development (R&D) of cybersecurity solutions by
the Mission Assurance Directorate of the Defense Information
Systems Agency (DISA). The DISA Information Systems Security
Program PE 33140K has no R&D funds requested at all.
A strategy of procuring only mature commercial or
government cybersecurity solutions is sound, but DISA has
multiple, high-priority unfunded needs, and needs some R&D
funding to work with industry to identify, test, and integrate
commercial security solutions. In past years, the committee
provided funds for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) through
DISA to conduct pilot programs with advanced technology
cybersecurity companies, which were very productive and valued
by the CIO. This funding, too, has not been sustained.
The committee urges the DISA Director, the CIO, and the
Principal Cyber Advisor to assess the lack of R&D funding for
cybersecurity at DISA, and include appropriate amounts in
future budget submissions. The committee recommends an
authorization of $9.4 million in PE 33140K for one of DISA's
highest priorities, building out the analytic platform for
cyber situational awareness at the community data center. This
analytic platform, analyzing a diversity of big data sources,
such as full packet capture, netflow, and log data, will be a
critical tool for the Cyber Protection Teams coming on line at
U.S. Cyber Command. In addition, the committee recommends
transferring the $3.2 million R&D request from PE 35103K to PE
33140K.
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
The budget request included $9.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for
the development, integration, and testing of special
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of
special operations capabilities to, among other things,
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks
while avoiding collateral damage.
The committee understands that the budget request only
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $5.2 million in RDTEDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs through the MQ-9 Medium
Altitude Long Endurance Tactical program of record utilizing
the Lead-Off Hitter rapid acquisition process. The committee
understands this process has successfully fielded MQ-9 UAV
capabilities at greatly reduced timelines when compared to
traditional acquisition processes and such capabilities have
significantly improved the accuracy and lethality of MQ-9 UAVs
in ``find, fix, and finish'' operations. The committee
encourages SOCOM to continue to look for other opportunities to
accelerate combat capability development through the Lead-Off
Hitter approach.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced training technologies
The committee believes that the appropriate application of
advanced technologies can help improve the effectiveness of
training, while reducing overall costs. The committee notes
that the Department of Defense has made significant progress in
the development of augmented reality and augmented virtuality
technologies to enhance training experiences through the use of
advanced computer simulation techniques. These technologies are
used to mix virtual and real-world experiences, so as to
improve training outcomes. Continuing work in these areas holds
the promise of developing increased virtual training
capability, with resulting enhanced force readiness at reduced
cost. The committee is unaware of any independent study
comparing the benefits of live, virtual, augmented, and mixed
reality training systems.
To help determine the value and possible need for increased
emphasis on these technical areas, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide for an independent review to
assess the effectiveness, in terms of cost and performance, of
augmented reality and augmented virtuality training methods and
tools. In particular, the study should examine the ability of
these deployed or developing systems and methods to enhance the
acquisition and retention of skills needed to complete critical
missions, as compared with exclusively live or virtual training
exercises. The report should be delivered to the congressional
defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment
of this Act.
Air Force Office of Scientific Research
The committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force
announced the decision to not relocate the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research (AFOSR) in testimony. The committee
commends the Secretary on the decision. AFOSR plays a vital
role in the development of new Air Force capabilities, by
funding basic research programs at universities, small
businesses, and government laboratories in areas including
advanced materials, cybersecurity, hypersonics, robotics, and
computer science. AFOSR investments in the past have led to a
range of deployed and commercial systems ranging from the
computer mouse to lasers to stealth materials used on tactical
aircraft. The committee notes that AFOSR has funded research by
73 scientists and engineers who have earned Nobel Prizes in
physics, chemistry, medicine, or economics. Further, AFOSR
plays a leading role in Air Force engagement with the global
scientific community, and in supporting the training of the
next generation of scientists, engineers, and technology
entrepreneurs through science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education and graduate fellowship programs.
The research community collaborates with AFOSR at its
present location, and has expressed concern to the committee
about the potential adverse impact of relocation on both the
mission of AFOSR and on its current federal and non-federal
partners. The committee notes that AFOSR moved to its present
location in the late 1990s, specifically to be physically close
to other key federal research offices, including the National
Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), and Office of Naval Research (ONR). This co-
location was endorsed as a Center of Excellence by the 2005
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. The Commission
further cautioned that placing AFOSR onto a military
installation could restrict access by key partners.
The committee is concerned that any relocation could risk
the Air Force losing the advantages of AFOSR's current
location, which likely enhance the effectiveness and efficiency
of the organization in the performance of its Air Force-
designated missions. Finally, the committee has yet to receive
any detailed budget information justifying a potential move on
the basis of cost savings. Accordingly, the committee directs
the Air Force to put on hold any further plans for the
relocation during fiscal year 2015.
Further, the committee directs the Air Force to report to
the committee on AFOSR programs and activities, no later than
180 day after the enactment of this Act. The report should
include information on planned activities to maintain and
strengthen AFOSR's basic research function, policies, and
activities being developed to ensure AFOSR can shape a
workforce best-qualified to manage the Air Force basic research
portfolio, activities intended to continue and expand AFOSR
outreach to universities and the U.S. and global scientific
community to support Air Force missions, and specific examples
of coordinated research and other activities with peer federal
research agencies.
Airborne signals intelligence enterprise
Due to the importance of the mission, the Air Force
continues to invest heavily in signals intelligence (SIGINT)
collection capabilities for multiple platforms. SIGINT is a key
component of airborne collection systems that exploit multiple
phenomenologies in contested and denied environments. As the
Air Force moves forward with system modifications and upgrades
of its SIGINT assets and capabilities, the Air Force needs to
be able to leverage investments made by programs across the
Department of Defense (DOD) to reduce life cycle costs of these
systems.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, DOD is pursuing a
number of efforts to apply open systems architecture principles
for modernization and sustaining existing systems, as well as
for new developments. Implementation of open systems
architecture standards should enable just such sharing and help
achieve the best value to the warfighter through ensuring
competition throughout the lifecycle of defense acquisition
programs, as directed by the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23).
The committee encourages the Air Force to continue its
efforts to move to open systems architectures that will
facilitate open competition at all levels for future system
modifications and upgrades.
Anti-submarine warfare research and development
The committee notes that continued advancements in
submarine technology present significant challenges for the
United States and the international community. The Navy's
Maritime Strategy lists the proliferation of submarines, both
advanced diesel-electric and nuclear-propelled submarines, as
potentially the principal threat to future maritime security.
Modern diesel-electric submarines are increasingly capable
and lethal. Advanced air independent propulsion (AIP) systems
have exponentially increased diesel submarines' underwater
endurance, which provides greater survivability and freedom of
movement. Additionally, diesel-electric submarines allow for
smaller submarine designs, which permit greater access to
littoral areas than their larger nuclear-powered counterparts.
Finally, many of these submarines are capable of carrying
advanced torpedoes and cruise missiles, which could threaten
maritime commerce and civilian shore installations. These
advanced capabilities, coupled with diesel submarines'
relatively low-cost, have resulted in rapid expansion of
submarine programs in nearly every region around the world.
The committee commends the Navy's proactive approach to
this growing challenge, including specific training exercises
designed to address modern diesel-electric submarines' unique
capabilities. However, the committee also encourages the Navy
to continue to pursue new technologies that could provide the
next generation of undersea warfare advantages, including
detection of sea-floor scarring and other non-acoustic
signature.
Cargo unmanned aerial system
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to demonstrate
the military utility of a cargo unmanned aerial system (UAS) to
support intra-theater operational logistics where the use of
manned aircraft or ground convoys to resupply troops is
uneconomical or dangerous. The committee understands that since
December 2011, the Marine Corps has been conducting a Military
User Assessment (MUA) of cargo UAS helicopters for supply
missions in Afghanistan. The committee believes that sufficient
information should be available to support the analysis
associated with a formal requirements development process and
decision on whether or not to transition cargo UAS helicopters
to a program of record.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
no later than April 1, 2015, on the results of the MUA and the
Department's plans, if any, for establishing a program of
record for the development, procurement, fielding, and
sustainment of cargo UAS helicopters.
Clear technical communications
The committee is concerned with the limited ability of the
Department of Defense (DOD) in communicating the values, goals,
successes, and impacts of its science and technology programs
to external audiences, including Congress, the public, and
government policy and decision makers. Communication of these
science and technology (S&T) developments is vital to an
external understanding of innovations within the DOD. Clear
descriptions of support for military missions and measurable
reductions in operational and acquisition costs should be key
goals of communication.
The committee commends the DOD for its efforts in its
``Armed With Science'' blog. The web site highlights S&T
developments within the DOD and is dedicated to making these
developments relevant to internal and external audiences alike.
``Armed With Science'' operates under the mission of making
science matter to everyone, and the committee believes that the
DOD needs to dedicate more resources to this goal.
Combat rescue helicopter
The Air Force has announced an intention to move forward
with the combat rescue helicopter (CRH) program to replace
existing HH-60 helicopters that fulfill the combat search and
rescue function in the Air Force. The Air Force also has
informed the committee that the future years defense program
(FYDP) plan for the CRH program includes a shortfall of $436.0
million needed to execute the CRH program.
The committee recognizes the importance of replacing the
aging HH-60 airframe, a heavily used helicopter whose readiness
rates are persistently low. The committee commends the Air
Force on moving forward with the CRH program, but remains
concerned that the Air Force properly budget for the program in
the out-years. The committee directs the Air Force to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees not less than 90
days after enactment of this Act on how it will correct that
funding shortfall for the CRH program in the FYDP.
EC-130H Compass Call aircraft
The committee is concerned about the plans of the Air Force
to retire almost one half of the EC-130H Compass Call fleet
starting in fiscal year 2016. The EC-130H Compass Call is an
airborne electronic attack (AEA) platform which has proven its
value in every major combat operation since Operation Just
Cause in 1989 through today's conflict in Afghanistan.
The EC-130H Compass Call provides an unparalleled
capability for our combatant commanders to disrupt enemy
command and control communications and limit adversary
coordination essential for enemy force management. As a manned
platform, Compass Call is able to operate independently in a
communications degraded environment. The Compass Call is also
flexible since the crew includes electronic warfare officers
and linguists who can make real-time decisions in the execution
of electronic warfare.
To ensure support for combatant commander needs, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a
plan, including milestones and resource requirements, to
replace, modernize, or rehost the current Compass Call
capabilities. The Secretary's plan will include a detailed
assessment of what the new objective system or systems should
be, what upgrades or enhancements of existing Compass Call
aircraft systems will be pursued for those aircraft remaining
in the force, and how the Air Force will meet combatant
commander requirements until a new objective system achieves
full operational capability. The Secretary should deliver this
plan to the congressional defense committees not later than
September 30, 2014.
Electronic warfare threat emitters
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
initiated development and fielding of new electronic warfare
testing and operational training capabilities to ensure that
weapon systems and aircrews, including the F-35, are able to be
appropriately tested and trained against emerging threats. The
committee notes that both the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation (OT&E) and the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center (TRMC) are funding efforts to develop and
field realistic electronic warfare threat simulators for use in
developmental and operational testing. The committee also
understands that the Air Force is currently fielding the Joint
Threat Emitter that can simulate the multiple threat scenarios
of modern integrated air defense systems to support operational
training missions. The committee supports the appropriate and
realistic testing and operational training of weapon systems
and aircrews to meet current operational requirements, as well
as emerging threats. The committee is concerned however that
these well-intentioned efforts may be duplicative, not well
coordinated, and not aligned with the schedule, testing, and
operational training requirements of currently fielded weapons
systems and the F-35.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Deputy Secretary
of Defense develop a coordinated plan, among the OT&E, TRMC,
Air Force, Navy, and relevant program offices and
organizations, for the development and fielding of a usable set
of electronic warfare threat simulation capabilities that meet
current and future operational training and testing
requirements and program schedule needs that sufficiently
simulate all realistic threat scenarios. The plan should
identify actions that promote the rapid development, fielding,
and leveraging of test and operational training assets to
support the most efficient deployment of capabilities on
current and future weapon systems to defeat existing threats
and mitigate impact of emerging threats. Further, the plan
should also identify a lead agency for this coordinated effort.
The committee directs that this plan be submitted to the
congressional defense committees before fiscal year 2015 funds
are expended on further development of these test capabilities.
This restriction does not prohibit funding of threat emitters
being fielded to meet current weapon system operational
training requirements.
Improved turbine engine program
Over the last 3 years the committee has consistently
expressed its support for the Army's Improved Turbine Engine
Program (ITEP). The committee recognizes that ITEP faces the
same challenges and fiscal risks impacting all Army research,
development, and acquisition programs under the Budget Control
Act of 2011. The committee understands that the Army would
prefer to take ITEP competitive prototyping beyond the
technology development phase and into engineering and
manufacturing development, however, future resources may not be
available to do so. Nonetheless, providing adequate and stable
funding for ITEP sufficient to carry at least two engine
developers over the next few years and through completion of
the technology development phase is important to reduce risk,
achieve appropriate technology maturity, and set the conditions
for ultimate program success. The committee supports the
current program funding profile and schedule and encourages the
Army to maintain stability and therefore momentum in the
program as resources and technical progress allow.
Inter-agency coordination on medical countermeasures development
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has a robust research and development (R&D) program to provide
bio-defense medical countermeasures for military and civilian
personnel to protect them against biological threats. The
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) also conducts
significant R&D of bio-defense medical countermeasures for
public health. The committee understands that the two
departments have established an interagency process for
coordination and collaboration on bio-defense medical
countermeasure development, to ensure that the bio-defense
needs of both military and civilian populations are met while
avoiding duplication of effort and maximizing the benefits of
limited resource allocation.
The committee believes such coordination and collaboration
are essential, and believes it is important to understand the
mechanism and process by which the two departments manage this
process with other interagency partners. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the
congressional defense committees an unclassified report, not
later than November 1, 2015, describing the process and
mechanisms by which the DOD coordinates its bio-defense medical
countermeasures development with those of the DHHS. The report
should describe the roles of the various interagency partners
in deciding R&D priorities and responsibilities, and how the
process avoids duplication of effort.
National Security Agency cybersecurity research and development
The budget request included $125.9 million for research and
development (R&D) for the National Security Agency's (NSA)
Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in PE 33140G,
conducted by the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD), a
reduction of one-third from the $181.6 million appropriated in
fiscal year 2014.
This steep R&D reduction resulted in part because of the
NSA IAD's insistence, despite the recommendation of the Office
of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Office of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation, on maintaining the level of
funding in its operations and maintenance budget to protect its
government workforce.
The committee urges the Principal Cyber Advisor and the CIO
to review the IAD cybersecurity R&D budget and to augment that
budget, as appropriate, through reprogramming actions. The
committee also urges the CIO and NSA's leadership to determine
IAD's sustainable government workforce levels in connection
with future budget submissions.
Supporting commercialization of defense laboratory technologies
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
executes a number of activities to promote the transfer of
technology from DOD laboratories or agencies to commercial
entities, for potential further technology development or
commercialization. These activities can support the development
of new military capabilities that can be incorporated into
acquisition programs, and also enhance the return on taxpayers'
investments in defense research programs, while creating jobs
and stimulating the economy. The committee notes that the
administration has established a major technology transfer
initiative, ``Lab-to-Market,'' with a goal of establishing
policies and programs that streamline the ability for the
private sector to leverage the inventions and innovation that
occur inside federal laboratories to support national missions.
Further, the committee notes that the recent Institute for
Defense Analyses study, ``Exemplar Practices for Department of
Defense Technology Transfer,'' identified a number of best
practices that enhance the efficiency of technology transfer
processes, including the establishment of partnerships between
labs, universities, and industry, marketing laboratory
technologies and capabilities to industry, and using existing
technology transfer mechanisms and authorities to full
potential. Finally, the committee notes that DOD recently
established a ``Technology Transfer Center of Excellence,''
which will help DOD transfer technologies developed at its
defense laboratories to the commercial marketplace. Consistent
with these efforts and findings, the committee recommends that
DOD continue to expand its technology transfer activities,
including through the use of expertise in university centers,
industry associations, and government organizations to identify
and proliferate best technology transfer practices.
Technology transition of successful research initiatives
Since its inception more than 55 years ago, the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has invested in a
number of groundbreaking new technology advances, some of which
have resulted in significantly enhanced military capabilities
as well as commercial products that benefit the nation. DARPA
has a unique role within the Department of Defense (DOD) and is
intended to be a specialized technological engine for pursuing
radical innovations and high-payoff research projects that can
transform military capabilities beyond near-term needs and
requirements.
The committee fully supports the important role that DARPA
fills in pursuing cutting edge concepts and technologies that
improve military capabilities. The committee believes that
continued investment in high-risk, high-payoff research and
development projects is critical, given the broad and complex
range of current and emerging security threats facing our
nation. In addition, with current fiscal constraints driving
reductions in force structure, readiness, and modernization in
DOD, it is essential that we sustain a robust science and
technology enterprise to support military readiness and to
deliver advanced technologies and capabilities to operational
forces.
Based on the nature of research endeavors, it is expected
that some technology projects may not achieve their intended
goals and objectives or are just the first steps towards proof
of concept and development. However, the committee is concerned
that some technology projects may be successfully completed,
but fail to transition into acquisition programs of record or
directly into operational use. This may be because of
administrative, funding, cultural, and/or programmatic barriers
that make it difficult to bridge the gap from science and
technology programs to acquisition programs, as well to the
expected users of the technology. As the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and others have previously
reported, transitioning technologies from defense science and
technology organizations to military users has been a long-
standing challenge for DOD. These reports have found that
sometimes technologies are not ready to transition when needed
because they may still be too risky or too costly to adopt or
have not been adequately demonstrated. In other cases,
promising technologies are not taken advantage of because of
insufficient processes and mechanisms to expedite their
transition to users. These transition barriers and failures
reduce the return on investment for science and technology
funding, and create severe funding challenges for research
performers in industry and government, who must strive to
sustain a skilled workforce, and specialized equipment and
facilities, during periods of funding discontinuities.
The committee further notes that the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and defense agencies manage over
$2.0 billion in science and technology programs aside from
those in the DARPA budget. The committee is concerned that
these programs are facing the same technology transition
challenges that DARPA faces.
The committee directs the GAO to review DARPA, OSD, and the
defense agencies technology transition processes, practices,
and results. In conducting this review, GAO should assess: (1)
The policies, processes, and mechanisms that have been
established to plan for and facilitate the transition of
technologies to users; (2) The extent to which organizations
use existing DOD and military department technology transition
programs and initiatives such as the Rapid Innovation program,
Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations, and the Small
Business Innovation Research program; (3) DARPA projects
considered technically successful that were not transitioned,
directly or indirectly, into operational use or service
acquisition programs and the underlying reasons for those
transition failures; (4) How organizations track and measure
technology transition; and (5) The factors that hinder the
transition of promising technologies.
The committee further directs that the GAO submit a report
on this review to the congressional defense committees no later
than 180 days after enactment of this Act.
Unmanned underwater vehicles and the public shipyards
In the House report accompanying H.R. 1960 (H. Rpt. 113-
102) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014, the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives expressed its belief that in order ``to
maintain undersea dominance in maritime regions of significant
economic and military importance to the United States, the Navy
requires disruptive technologies that can be rapidly developed,
demonstrated, evaluated, and fielded to counter expanding
undersea capabilities by peer and near-peer maritime nations
and to extend the Navy's reach and persistence.'' The committee
expressed its concern that, under the Navy's acquisition plan,
the Navy would not have the new technologies it needs to meet
these requirements until after 2020.
The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate agrees with
the views expressed by the House. Unmanned underwater vehicles
(UUV) will be critical to the protection of U.S. economic and
national security interests. Integrating them and other
autonomous undersea technologies and payloads into the undersea
warfare mission area will expand the technology base and more
rapidly provide warfighting options that are not currently
achievable.
The committee remains concerned that the Navy may not be
able to develop the necessary capabilities to achieve its goal
of deploying large displacement UUV (LDUUV) from an operational
UUV squadron on independent missions by 2020. Further, the
committee believes that budget constraints may further hamper
the development of these critical capabilities. For these
reasons, with respect to the development of UUVs, the committee
believes that the Navy should look for opportunities to
capitalize on existing resources and assets within the Navy
enterprise to expedite the development of these vehicles and
their technology at the lowest possible cost.
Particularly with respect to the LDUUV project, the
committee encourages the Navy to take full advantage of
existing expertise and infrastructure at the public shipyards.
The committee believes that the public shipyards may be able to
assist the LDUUV project with engineering, configuration
management, acquisition support, technical problem solving, and
operations and logistics support, including life-cycle
maintenance and mission package support.
Therefore, no later than September 30, 2014, the committee
directs the Navy to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees detailing how the Navy is currently
utilizing, and plans to utilize, the public shipyard
infrastructure and expertise for UUV research, development,
engineering, configuration management, acquisition support,
technical problem solving, and operations and logistics
support, including life-cycle maintenance and mission package
support. In addition, the report should identify all funding by
fiscal year, appropriation, and line item/program element
budgeted in support of this effort.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the
levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment
Method of funding for cooperative agreements under the Sikes Act (sec.
311)
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a-670o) provides the secretary
of a military department the authority to enter into
cooperative agreements with the states, local governments,
Indian tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and the heads of
other federal departments and agencies to maintain and improve
the natural resources on or off military and National Guard
installations.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend this
section of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670c-1) to allow the funds
for such a cooperative agreement to be paid in a lump sum that
includes an amount to cover future costs of the activities
provided for under the agreement. The provision would also
allow the funds be placed in an interest-bearing account
provided that the interest or income is applied for the same
purpose as the principal.
Environmental Restoration at former Naval Air Station, Chincoteague,
Virginia (sec. 312)
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration has the administrative jurisdiction over the
Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia. The site includes the area
formerly known as the Naval Air Station Chincoteague, Virginia,
including the Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station, Virginia.
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to undertake an environmental restoration
project in the area with regard to pollutants or contaminants
that are solely attributable to Department of Defense
activities while the property was under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. The project may be
entered into either jointly or in conjunction with an
environmental restoration project of the Administrator.
The provision also provides that the Secretary and the
Administrator may enter into an agreement to provide for the
effective and efficient performance of environmental
restoration projects in the area. The Secretary may use funds
available in the Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used
Defense Sites account for these environmental restoration
projects.
Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of drop-in fuels
(sec. 313)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
Department of Defense funds to be used for bulk purchases of
drop-in fuel for operational purposes during fiscal year 2015,
unless the cost of that drop-in fuel is cost competitive with
traditional fuel, subject to a national security waiver. The
committee notes that the phrase ``cost competitive'' in this
section generally refers to prices that are equal to or lower
than prices offered by competitors for similar goods or
services. However, the committee notes that terms and
conditions for particular purchases may vary; in particular,
long-term energy purchases are likely to have different pricing
structures from short-term or spot-market purchases.
Accordingly, the committee believes some flexibility in the
application of this phrase is anticipated, where necessary to
address such differences. The committee understands that
average prices over the period of a long-term contract would be
cost competitive.
Study on implementation of requirements for consideration of fuel
logistics support requirements in planning, requirements
development, and acquisition processes (sec. 314)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment
of this Act, on the implementation of section 332 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417). The report shall describe the
implementzation to date of the requirements for consideration
of fuel logistics support requirements in the planning,
requirements development, and acquisition processes for: (1)
Acquisition solicitations that incorporate analysis established
and developed pursuant to section 332; (2) The fully burdened
cost of energy and energy key performance parameters in
relation to other metrics; (3) The total fuel costs avoided as
a result of inclusion of the fully burdened cost of energy and
energy key performance parameters, including an estimate of
monetary savings and fuel volume savings; and (4) The extent to
which the energy security requirements of the Department of
Defense are enhanced.
Comptroller General study of Department of Defense research and
development projects and investments to increase energy
security and meet energy goals requirements (sec. 315)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General to conduct a review of Department of
Defense projects, strategy, resourcing, research, development,
and investment in pursuit of increasing energy security,
decreasing energy consumption and logistical burdens, reducing
tactical and strategic vulnerabilities, and meeting renewable
energy goals set forth in section 2911(e) of title 10, United
States Code.
Decontamination of a portion of former bombardment area on island of
Culebra, Puerto Rico (sec. 316)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that certain limited portions of the former
bombardment area on the Island of Culebra should be available
for safe public recreational use while the remainder of the
area is most advantageously reserved as habitat for endangered
and threatened species.
The provision would also change a legislative restriction
in section 204(c) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act, 1974 (Public Law 93-166) which provides that section shall
not apply to the beaches, the campgrounds, and the Carlos
Rosario Trail, as defined in the provision.
The provision would also allow, notwithstanding the
quitclaim deed, the Secretary of the Army to expend funds
available in the Environmental Restoration Account, Formerly
Used Defense Sites (FUDS), established pursuant to section
2703(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to decontaminate
the beaches, the campgrounds, and the Carlos Rosario Trail of
unexploded ordnance.
The committee notes that the purpose of this provision is
to lift the statutory restriction that is barring the Secretary
of the Army from decontaminating this part of Culebra Island.
This decontamination project should be prioritized within the
regular process with all other FUDS.
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Modification of annual reporting requirement related to prepositioning
of materiel and equipment (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2229(c) of title 10, United States Code to sunset after
3 years, the Comptroller General's annual review of the
Department of Defense's progress in implementing its strategic
policy and plan for its prepositioned stocks.
Modification of quarterly readiness reporting requirement (sec. 322)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to update and
streamline the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC).
The committee also strongly urges the Department of Defense
(DOD) to remove Supplement One from future QRRCs as the
information therein is readily available in the public domain.
The committee notes that the recommended provision would
include a separate assessment for the United States Cyber
Command.
The committee also notes that while the recommended
provision strikes the reporting requirement on major exercise
assessments, the committee directs DOD to report on an after-
action assessment of any major exercise related to nuclear
command, control, and communications for 3 years after
enactment of this Act, beginning with the first QRRC of fiscal
year 2015. The report may be in classified format, as
appropriate.
The committee strongly urges DOD to move the information
captured in Supplement Two of the QRRC to Annex B in order to
avoid duplication and maximize efficiency.
Elimination of authority to abolish arsenals (sec. 323)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4532 of Title 10, United States Code, the Arsenal Act,
and eliminate the ability of the Secretary of the Army to
abolish any U.S. arsenal considered to be unnecessary.The
provision would also make it the objective of the Secretary of
the Army, in managing the workload of the arsenals, to maintain
the critical capabilities identified in the Army Organic
Industrial Base Strategy Report, and to ensure cost efficiency
and technical competence in peacetime, while preserving the
ability to provide an effective and timely response to
mobilizations, national defense contingency situations, and
other emergent requirements.
Subtitle D--Reports
Repeal of annual report on Department of Defense operation and
financial support for military museums (sec. 331)
The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense (DOD), that would repeal section 489 of
title 10, United States Code, which requires the Secretary of
Defense to submit annually to Congress a report on DOD
operation and financial support for military museums. The
committee notes that preparation of this report requires
extensive data collection, but the DOD components do not use
the information in the report to manage their programs. Repeal
of the report will save the DOD $39,000 per year.
Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority
Limitation on MC-12 aircraft transfer to United States Special
Operations Command (sec. 341)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the transfer of 24 MC-12 aircraft from the Air Force to U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) for manned intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) until the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict, in coordination with the Commander of SOCOM, provides
the congressional defense committees with an analysis and
justification for such a transfer.
The committee notes that since 2005, SOCOM has spent more
than $524.0 million to field 33 U-28 ISR aircraft to support
near-term ISR requirements in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as
longer-term ISR requirements in Asia-Pacific, Africa, and
elsewhere. The committee is concerned that SOCOM now plans to
divest most of these aircraft in favor of MC-12 aircraft
without sufficient analysis and justification. For example, the
July 2005 Aircraft Selection Report supporting SOCOM's decision
to acquire single engine U-28 aircraft as opposed to other
available multi-engine aircraft indicated that ``engine
failures in multi-engine aircraft are much more likely to cause
an accident according to the Federal Aviation Administration.''
The committee is concerned appropriate safety analysis has not
been conducted to support the change to a multi-engine ISR
aircraft and has included additional information on this matter
in the classified annex accompanying this bill. Furthermore,
the committee understands that MC-12 aircraft may require
significant investment to support integration of sensor
capabilities similar to those provided by the U-28 without
meeting its long-term manned ISR requirements.
The committee believes that until further analysis is
completed and presented to the congressional defense
committees, SOCOM should continue to use available operation
and maintenance funding to resource flying hours for its
existing inventory of U-28 and MC-12 JAVAMAN I/II aircraft.
Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends no funding for
MC-12 modifications in fiscal year 2015.
The committee notes that the budget request included $41.8
million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, and $10.5
million in Procurement, Defense-wide, to support aircraft to be
flown by the Air National Guard in support of SOCOM aviation
foreign internal defense (AvFID) missions. The committee
supports this effort and notes that the limitation included in
this provision and the reduction in funding for MC-12
modifications contained elsewhere in the bill do not apply to
the AvFID program.
Limitation on establishment of regional Special Operations Forces
Coordination Centers (sec. 342)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of funds authorized for fiscal
year 2015 to establish Regional Special Operations Forces
Coordination Centers (RSCC) by U.S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM).
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) included a similar
prohibition and required the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report on
the purpose, cost, and the authorities necessary for the
establishment of RSCCs. While the required report was submitted
on April 16, 2014, it left a number of questions unanswered
related to the long-term funding required to support RSCCs in
each geographic combatant command (GCC); the relative funding
that would be provided by SOCOM, the GCCs, and the host nation
or other participating nations; and coordination with other
engagement activities conducted by the GCCs and the Department
of State. Additionally, the report states that ``Providing
confirmed and sustained out-year support is critical to
realizing the full potential of an RSCC.'' However, the report
also identifies additional legislative authorities that would
need to be addressed for such ``confirmed and sustained''
support to occur while indicating ``there are currently no
plans to seek these additional authorities.''
The committee believes issues related to funding and
authorities need to be resolved before RSCCs are established.
The committee also believes that SOCOM should focus its efforts
and resources on supporting regional special operations
engagement activities that are hosted in and led by partner
nations. For example, the committee understands that Colombia
is working to establish the ``Centro Regional de Estudios
Avanzados de Seguridad'' or CREAS, that will, among other
things, bring together regional special operations forces for
educational, training, and other events. The committee notes
that the recommended provision would not prohibit the provision
of support to regional special operations coordination
activities, like CREAS, led by and established in partner
nations, provided they are consistent with broader military-to-
military objectives and coordinated with the Department of
State and relevant country teams.
Further, the committee believes that SOCOM has not fully
explored the viability of expanded cooperation with the
regional security studies centers and believes that expanded
cooperation with the existing centers should be prioritized. As
such, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (USD(P)) to conduct a review of the existing regional
centers and establish a process through which the SOCOM
Commander's priorities are more effectively incorporated in
their activities. Once this review is complete, the committee
directs the USD(P) to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees.
Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends a
reduction of $1.8 million from the requested amount in
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for RSCC concept
development, study, and planning in fiscal year 2015.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Repeal of authority relating to use of military installations by Civil
Reserve Air Fleet contractors (sec. 351)
The committee recommends a provision that 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 has been authorized to enter
into contracts with air carriers authorizing the use of
designated installations as: (1) Weather-related landing
alternatives; (2) Technical stops not involving the enplaning
or deplaning of passengers or cargo; or (3) In the case of an
installation within the United States, for other commercial
purposes. While the legislation envisioned such agreements as a
potential incentive for obtaining air carrier commitment to the
Civil Reserve Air Fleet program, the Secretary's authority has
not resulted in a single contract in its almost 20 years of
existence.
Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms (sec.
352)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L. 113-66) that established a policy that
the Secretary of Defense shall eliminate the development and
fielding of Armed Forces-specific combat and camouflage utility
uniforms and families-of-uniforms for specific combat
environments to be used by all members of the Armed Forces.
The committee notes that the guidance for the military
services and combatant commands required to implement this
policy has not yet been delivered to the committee. The
committee also notes that based on demand and price
differentials, the average contract price for the current
Marine Corps desert blouse is $33.70, compared to the Navy's
blouse contract unit price of $36.04. The average contract
price for the current Marine Corps woodland and desert trousers
is $35.82, compared to the Navy's trousers unit price of
$44.45. The committee notes that based on current annual
demand, the Navy could save approximately $724,000 by simply
fielding the Marine Corps combat uniform to sailors. Additional
savings may be found by combining Navy and Marine Corps combat
uniform planning, item production, warehousing, and follow-on
sustainment efforts.
The committee believes that an implementation plan is
necessary to ensure that the Department of Defense develops a
schedule and identifies the actions necessary to fulfill the
Department's policy on ground combat and camouflage utility
uniforms.
Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas (sec. 353)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
that the Secretary of the Navy will establish areas, to be
known as the Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas, for
national defense purposes. The areas are defined by coordinate
boundaries in the provision. Sections 4 and 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533, 1538) and Sections 101 and
102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1371, 1372) would not apply with respect to the incidental
takings of any southern sea otter in the Southern Sea Otter
Military Readiness Areas in the course of conducting a military
readiness activity. For purposes of military readiness
activities, the otters within the readiness areas would be
treated, for purposes of section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), as a member of a species that is
proposed to be listed as an endangered species or threatened
species under section 4 of that Act.
The Secretary of Interior would be able to revise or
terminate the exceptions to the Endangered Species Act and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act if the Secretary were to
determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy and
the Marine Mammal Commission, that the military activities
occurring in the readiness areas were impeding southern sea
otter conservation or the return of the sea otters to optimum
sustainable population levels.
The provision would also repeal Section 1 of Public Law 99-
625 (16 U.S.C. 1536 note).
Budget Items
Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases
The budget request included $33.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.0 billion was for land
forces depot maintenance and $2.0 billion was for facilities
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM). The budget
request also included $2.4 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $58.8 million was
for land forces depot maintenance.
The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness
accounts that could help offset the negative impacts from
sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The committee
notes that these recommended increases will restore some
critical depot maintenance requirements for the Army and the
Army Reserve.
The committee also notes that these recommended increases
will satisfy the Army's 6 percent capital investment program,
as required by law.
Accordingly, the committee recommends increases in OMA of
$185.6 million for land forces depot maintenance and $94.3
million in SRM. The committee also recommends an increase of
$15.0 million in OMAR for land forces depot maintenance.
Facilities Sustainment
The committee recognizes that facilities sustainment
funding is often deferred in difficult budget times in favor of
other priorities. However, underfunding of facilities
sustainment accepts greater risk that facilities will fail
prematurely and, in the longer term, result in higher
restoration and replacement costs. The committee notes that
requested funding for facilities sustainment has fallen from
$8.5 billion in fiscal year 2013 to $6.4 billion for fiscal
year 2015, a decrease of 25 percent in only 3 years.
On April 2, 2014, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Installations and Environment testified before the
committee that, ``Sustainment represents the Department's
single most important investment in the condition of its
facilities . . . While the Department's goal is to fund
sustainment at 90 percent of modeled requirements, the funding
level noted above supports an average DOD-wide sustainment
funding level of 65 percent of the Facilities Sustainment Model
requirement.''
The committee believes that the dramatic decrease in
facilities sustainment funding represents an unacceptable risk
to the readiness of Department of Defense facilities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $105.0
million in Operation and Maintenance for facilities sustainment
across the active, guard, and reserve components.
Foreign currency fluctuation reductions
The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.0 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $35.3 billion for Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $31.1 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
The committee believes that when foreign currency
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered,
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
informed the committee that as of March 2014, the Department
has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to
replenish the account for fiscal year 2014 from a beginning
balance of $970.0 million. A GAO analysis projects that the
Department will experience a net gain of $351.9 million due to
favorable foreign exchange rates and will lose $248.1 million
in fiscal year 2015 in FCF.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $48.9
million to OMA, $74.2 million to OMN, $28.4 million to OMMC,
$51.9 million to OMAF, and $17.5 million to OMDW for FCF.
Projected overstatement for Army civilian personnel
The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA). Army officials have informed the
committee that they expect an average civilian personnel end
strength for fiscal year 2015 that is 2,600 (1 percent) lower
than planned in the budget, due to reductions in the workforce
since the time that budget estimates were made last year.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $250.0
million in OMA for overstatement of civilian personnel.
Undistributed travel reductions
The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $829.3 million was for travel
of persons. The budget request included $39.0 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $569.4 million
was for travel of persons. The budget request included $5.9
billion for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of
which $183.2 million was for travel of persons. The budget
request included $35.3 billion for Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force (OMAF), of which $673.8 million was for travel of
persons. The budget request included $31.1 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) of which $678.1
million was for travel of persons.
The committee believes that a portion of the planned
Department of Defense travel budget should be realigned to
support higher priority readiness requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
decrease of $21.1 million to OMA, $14.5 million to OMN, $4.8
million to OMMC, $17.3 million to OMAF, and $17.3 million to
OMDW for travel.
Army National Guard readiness funding increase
The budget request included $6.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $198.3
million was for maneuver units. The budget request also
included $128.9 billion in Military Personnel Appropriations
(MPA).
The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million in
OMARNG for maneuver units and $45.0 million in MPA.
The committee notes that these recommended increases will
ensure that two brigade combat teams will be able to attend
combat training center (CTC) rotations in fiscal year 2015,
which is the top request on the Army National Guard's unfunded
requirements list. These funding increases will also provide
additional enabler support during CTC rotations for the active
component which does not require personnel growth.
Army National Guard advertising reduction
The budget request included $274.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG). The committee
believes some of the advertising funding should be realigned to
support higher priority readiness requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $13.8
million in OMARNG for advertising.
Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases
The budget request included $39.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $814.7 million was for
aircraft depot maintenance and $1.4 billion was for
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM).
The Navy has identified specific amounts in these readiness
accounts that could help offset the negative impacts from
sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The committee
notes that these recommended increases will fund some of the
Navy's fiscal year 2015 unfunded requirements for aircraft
depot maintenance.
The committee further notes that the recommended funding
increase for SRM will enable the Navy to meet the minimum
capital investment threshold of 6 percent across all shipyards
and depots, as required by law.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMN of
$108.9 million in aircraft depot maintenance and $85.2 million
in SRM.
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests
The fiscal year 2015 budget request reduced the number of
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests by two. Given the
importance of these tests to the readiness of the strategic
submarine force, the committee recommends $1.3 million to
conduct an additional Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Test.
Aircraft carrier defueling planning funds
The budget request included $46.0 million in the Operation
and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) account for advance planning
funding for defueling of the USS George Washington (CVN-73) in
fiscal year 2017.
It is the committee's intent that the Navy proceed with the
refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington
(CVN-73) should additional funds be made available in fiscal
year 2015 for that purpose.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $46.0
million in OMN, and an increase of $46.0 million for CVN
Refueling Overhauls in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
account.
Marine Corps unfunded priorities increase
The budget request included $5.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $905.7 million was
for operational forces.
The Marine Corps has identified specific amounts in these
readiness accounts that could help offset some negative impacts
from sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The
committee notes that this recommended increase will improve the
Marine Corps ability to resource new Special-Purpose Marine
Air-Ground Task Forces in U.S. Central and U.S. Southern
Combatant Commands areas of responsibility.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $33.8
million in OMMC for operational forces.
The committee further notes that in a separate budget item,
the recommended funding increase for facilities sustainment,
restoration, and modernization will enable the Marine Corps to
meet the minimum capital investment threshold of 6 percent
across all depots, as required by law.
Marine Corps tuition assistance
The budget request included $19.1 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for off duty and voluntary
education programs. At the request of the Marine Corps, the
committee recommends an increase of $15.7 million in OMMC for
tuition assistance.
The budget request also included $105.7 million in PE
63611M for Marine Corps assault vehicles. At the request of the
Marine Corps, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.7
million in PE 63611M or the new amphibious vehicle project.
Museum reduction
The budget request included $362.6 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for Administration, of which
$9.1 million was for an expansion of the National Museum of the
Marine Corps (NMMC).
The committee believes that the funding should be realigned
to support higher priority readiness requirements given the
funding increase of $9.1 million is comparable to the entire
cost of the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program Norway in
fiscal year 2015, and the baseline request for the NMMC is
already $49.5 million.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.1
million in OMMC for the NMMC.
RC-135 Rivet Joint
The budget request included classified amounts in Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), PE 35207F, for the
RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence collection program.
This request exceeds the amount requested in fiscal year 2014,
when operational tempos and budgets were higher. The committee
recommends a reduction of $8.0 million, which represents an
increase over the fiscal year 2014 appropriated amount.
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support reduction
The budget request included $35.3 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $871.8 million was for
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support.
The committee recommends a decrease of $11.0 million in
OMAF for a classified program. Additional information is
provided in the classified annex.
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command
The budget request included $237.3 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Core
Operations, of which $40.7 million was for Joint Enabling
Capabilities Command (JECC).
The committee believes this funding should be realigned to
support high priority readiness requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0
million in OMAF for JECC.
United States Pacific Command unfunded priorities increases
The budget request included $35.3 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.0 billion was in
logistics operations.
The United States Pacific Command (PACOM) has identified
specific amounts in readiness accounts that could help offset
the negative impacts of sequestration and accelerate readiness
recovery. The committee notes that this recommended increase
will mitigate a critical munitions shortfall program for PACOM.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.3
million in OMAF for logistics operations.
In the procurement of ammunition budget tables, the
committee recommends a related funding increase to mitigate a
critical munitions shortfall program for PACOM.
U.S. Special Operations Command-National Capital Region
The budget request includes $5.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the U.S. Special
Operations Command-National Capital Region (SOCOM-NCR)
initiative. The committee received notification on March 19,
2014, from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict that SOCOM has
discontinued efforts to develop and implement its concept for a
SOCOM-NCR office.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in OMDW for
the SOCOM-NCR.
Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers
The budget request includes $3.6 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Regional Special
Operations Coordination Centers (RSCC). The committee believes
that the requested funding is excessive for the purposes of
concept development, study, & planning as outlined in the
budget justification materials. Elsewhere in the bill, the
committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
establishment of RSCCs.
Therefore, the committee recommends $1.8 million in OMDW
for RSCC concept development, study, and planning.
U.S. Special Operations Command unfunded readiness requirements
The budget request included $4.76 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, for U.S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM). The committee notes that the Commander of SOCOM has
identified $344.2 million in unfunded readiness requirements
for U.S. Special Operations Forces. The committee is concerned
that current fiscal pressures have forced SOCOM to assume
unacceptable risk in its training programs.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $36.4
million to support aircrew training hours, the SOCOM
Commander's top unfunded readiness requirement, and $20.0
million for high priority unit readiness training, which was
also identified by the SOCOM Commander as an unfunded readiness
requirement.
Department of Defense STARBASE program
The budget request included no funding for the Department
of Defense (DOD) STARBASE program. The purpose of STARBASE is
to improve the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten
through 12th grade in science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) subjects, to connect them to the military, and to
motivate them to explore STEM and possible military careers as
they continue their education. STARBASE currently operates at
76 locations in 40 states and the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, primarily on military installations. To date,
nearly 750,000 students have participated in the program.
STARBASE is a highly effective program run by our dedicated
servicemembers and strengthens the relationships between the
military, communities, and local school districts.
The committee notes that the budget request eliminated
funding for this successful program due to a reorganization of
STEM programs throughout the Federal Government, and believes
that STARBASE should continue to be operated by DOD.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million for the DOD STARBASE program.
Procurement technical assistance program
The budget request included $381.4 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Logistics
Agency, of which, $23.0 million was for the procurement
technical assistance program (PTAP).
The committee notes that the purpose of the PTAP is to
enhance the industrial base, improve local economies, and
generate employment by assisting small businesses with help
from the Department of Defense, federal agencies, and state and
local governments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $12.7
million in OMDW for the PTAP.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
The budget request includes $544.8 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide for the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, of which $34.4 million is for the Combating Terrorism
Fellowship Program (CTFP). While the committee remains
supportive of this program, the committee is concerned about
the expanding activities and increased operating costs of the
CTFP at a time of fiscal challenges. The committee encourages
the CTFP to focus its activities on its core counterterrorism
training and education and a limited number of regions where
the threat posed by terrorism is the most significant. As such,
the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of $7.0
million for the CTFP.
The budget request also includes $12.2 million for the
Defense Institute Reform Initiative (DIRI) and $2.6 million for
the Defense Institute for International Legal Studies (DIILS).
While the committee recommends no funding reduction to the DIRI
and the DIILS programs, the committee directs the Director of
the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to adjust, as
appropriate, the budget documentation in the next fiscal year
to redirect the funding from DIRI and DIILS to the human rights
training initiative authorized in this Act.
Funding for impact aid
The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from
the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in
funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of
this committee report.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Impact aid for schools with military dependent students. 25.0
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities........ 5.0
Total............................................... 30.0
Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request
The budget request included $186.9 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA), of which $80.6 million was for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements. The committee remains
concerned that the funds requested for the OEA are ahead of
need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $80.6
million in OMDW for the OEA.
Defense-wide funding decrease for 2015 base realignment and closure
support
The budget request included $1.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, of which $4.8 million was support for a
2015 round of base realignment and closure (BRAC).
The bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the
expenditure of funds for a new BRAC round. Accordingly, the
committee recommends a decrease of $4.8 million in OMDW for the
2015 BRAC round.
Department of Defense rewards program reduction
The budget request included $1.8 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, of which $7.9 million was for the
Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program.
The committee is concerned that the DOD rewards program has
been hampered by historical under-execution for several years
now. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0
million in OMDW for the DOD rewards program.
Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to
United States Africa Command
The budget request includes $31.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). Within that amount for
classified programs, the budget justification material
identifies no specific funding to sustain intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to any of U.S.
Africa Command's (AFRICOM) ongoing operations.
The fiscal year 2015 request includes no funding for
contract ISR, which will mean that, absent congressional
action, Operation Observant Compass ISR support will depend on
the Global Force Management Allocation Process (GFMAP). The
GFMAP has not resulted in adequate ISR support to AFRICOM in
the past. Therefore, the committee recommends $60.0 million in
OMDW to sustain ISR support to AFRICOM and further directs the
Secretary of Defense to ensure the GFMAP is used to provide
appropriate ISR support to AFRICOM operations.
Defense Clandestine Service
The budget request included classified amounts in Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Human
Intelligence Enabling project for the Defense Clandestine
Service (DCS) initiative in the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The request represents an increase of $13.3 million for fiscal
year 2014. The Department of Defense (DOD) has consistently
maintained that the DCS initiative would be executed within
existing planned resources, and the committee notes that DOD's
original plans for DCS have been scaled back. The committee
does not support growth in this area and recommends a decrease
of $13.3 million.
Operational support to the Defense Clandestine Service
The budget request includes classified amounts in Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Operational Human
Intelligence project in the Military Intelligence Program
budget of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The budget request
for this project includes an increase of $5.1 million in
support for the Defense Clandestine Service. The Department of
Defense (DOD) has consistently maintained that the DCS
initiative would be executed within existing planned resources,
and the committee notes that DOD's original plans for DCS have
been scaled back. The committee does not support growth in this
area and recommends a decrease of $5.1 million.
Review of operation of certain ships during Vietnam era
The budget request included $31.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). In a legislative provision
located in title X of this committee report, the committee
recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of
Defense to review within 1 year of the date of enactment of
this Act the logs of each Navy ship known to have operated in
the waters near Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7,
1975, to determine whether the ship operated in the territorial
waters of the Republic of Vietnam during that period, and if
so, when.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMDW
of $5.0 million to reflect this provision.
Support for international sporting competitions
The budget request included $1.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Miscellaneous Appropriations (OMMA), of which
$10.0 million was for Support for International Sporting
Competitions (SISC), Defense account.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
expects to allocate approximately $1.0 million to $3.0 million
in SISC resources in support of the 2015 Special Olympics World
Summer Games.
The committee is concerned that as of March 2014, the SISC
account still has $3.8 million from fiscal year 2013 in
unallocated carryover, in addition to $4.3 million in allocated
but unobligated funds for sporting events that have since
concluded from the 1990s and the early 2000s.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.3
million in OMMA to the SISC Defense account.
Items of Special Interest
Acoustic mixing
The committee understands that the Army currently uses low-
frequency, high-intensity sound waves, in a technology called
``acoustic mixing'' during the manufacturing of some munitions.
Acoustic mixing makes it possible to efficiently mix a wide
variety of materials, including highly viscous substances. The
committee further understands that this process could have the
potential to improve industrial efficiency and productivity.
The committee encourages the Army to continue to evaluate
acoustic mixing capabilities that could increase industrial
productivity, decrease adverse environmental impacts, and
enhance safety.
Active and Reserve funding efficiencies for training
The committee understands that the pace of recent combat
and contingency operations, the needs of the total force, and
fiscal constraints have determined the Army's use for brigade-
level combat training at each of its three Combat Training
Centers (CTC). Active duty brigade combat teams (BCT) conduct
training at one of the CTC every 2 to 3 years on average, while
Army National Guard BCT conduct collective CTC training every 7
years on average.
The committee believes that there may be cost effective and
efficient options for active component training using reserve
component training facilities. For active component units not
assigned to combat brigades, at echelons above or below
brigade-level, and for those units not routinely participating
in a CTC rotation, the committee is interested to learn if
reserve component regional training institutes and centers may
provide a cost effective means to provide access to enhanced
training resources and improve or sustain readiness.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to review current unit training funding mechanisms that do
or could allow for possible integration and use of active
component units at reserve component training facilities. The
review should consider existing policies and processes for
active and reserve component training and resources, and
recommendations that may improve training effectiveness and
cost efficiency. The review should also include an outline of
all existing reserve component training facilities at which
active component training might improve readiness. The
Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this review
to this committee no later than 1 year from the date of
enactment of this Act.
Additive manufacturing
The committee notes that Senate Report 113-44 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
required the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or
report to the congressional defense committees on the potential
benefits and constraints of additive manufacturing, how the
process could or could not contribute to Department of Defense
(DOD) missions, and what technologies being developed at the
National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII)
are being transitioned for DOD use.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to: (1)
Analyze and report to the congressional defense committees on
the sufficiency of the DOD's report in addressing the
requirements; (2) Review the extent to which DOD has a process
in place to ensure that additive manufacturing initiatives are
coordinated across the DOD; and (3) Examine DOD's methods for
determining whether these initiatives will improve combat
capability, achieve performance improvements, and/or cost
efficiencies over conventional manufacturing techniques. The
Comptroller General review shall be delivered to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2015.
Afghanistan retrograde costs
The committee recognizes that the retrograde of equipment
and personnel from Afghanistan is a significant logistical
challenge for the Department of Defense (DOD). According to
Department officials, there are three primary options for the
retrograde and reduction of equipment in Afghanistan: removing
the equipment from Afghanistan, transferring the equipment to
another agency or government, or destroying the equipment in
theater.
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has reported in the past on the need for DOD
officials to conduct and document analyses that compare the
costs of and benefits of equipment retrograde, and that cost-
benefit analyses should be a key factor in decision-making.
Additionally, the committee notes that the GAO has also
reported that one of the primary costs the Department should
consider is the cost of equipment transportation, and that it
is particularly important when considering what to do with
equipment that exceed a Service's approved acquisition
objective (AAO). The committee believes that retrograde
internal controls could be more efficient and cost-effective.
Consequently, the committee is concerned about the potential
accrual of unnecessary transportation costs resulting from the
return of equipment from Afghanistan.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing or a report to the committee no later
than February 1, 2015, demonstrating what actions the
Department has taken to ensure that justifications for
returning equipment from Afghanistan that exceeds their AAO are
documented and receive management review, and that
transportation and all other relevant costs are included in
disposition decision-making for equipment returning from
Afghanistan.
Air tactical training
The committee understands that the Active and Reserve Air
Force and Navy components have successfully used contracted
fighter aircraft to augment some aspects of air tactical
training to replicate adversaries with electronic warfare
capabilities and joint terminal attack controller training. The
committee notes that outsourced air tactical training brings
potential benefits of prolonging aircraft service life and
decreased costs in flying hour programs, especially with
respect to fifth generation fighters. Given the current climate
of fiscal constraints coupled with the potential to preserve
valuable readiness resources, the committee encourages the
military services to consider expanding the use of contracted
air tactical training to additional units for appropriate
missions.
Army and Marine Corps equipment reset
The committee notes that billions of dollars' worth of
equipment has and continues to be retrograded from Afghanistan
and the Army and Marine Corps continue to face a multi-year and
multi-billion dollar effort to reset this equipment to a
combat-ready condition. Both the Secretary and Chief of Staff
of the Army have testified to this committee that during fiscal
years 2013 and 2014, the Army had reset approximately 87,000
pieces of equipment at the depot level and about 300,000 pieces
of equipment at the unit level. But as a result of
sequestration, the Army had deferred approximately $729.0
million of equipment reset, postponing the repair of nearly 700
vehicles, 28 aircraft, and over 2,000 weapons and prepositioned
stock. The Army leadership further projects that its reset
requirement of equipment will extend at least 3 years after
redeployment and will cost approximately $9.6 billion.
Conversely, the Marine Corps leadership has testified to
this committee that while its equipment reset liability cost
was approximately $3.2 billion last year, it had made
significant progress to date and now estimates that its
remaining reset liability will cost about $1.1 billion. The
Marine Corps leadership has also testified to this committee
that its reset requirements will continue at least 2 to 3 years
after its equipment has redeployed.
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has reported in the past on the need for more
accurate cost estimates and reporting of the Army and Marine
Corps projected equipment reset liability requirements.
Additionally, the GAO has reported on the need for a standard
Department of Defense-wide definition of reset for use in the
overseas contingency operations budgeting process.
Consequently, the committee is interested in verifiable
financial reset requirements reported by the Army and Marine
Corps.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to provide the committee with an
assessment of the Army and Marine Corps extended equipment
reset liability costs and requirements. This assessment shall
include, but not be limited to: the extent to which the Army
and Marine Corps are using a consistent definition of reset in
estimating their reset liability costs, the types of costs
included in the Army and Marine Corps reset liability
estimates, an analysis of any assumptions used in developing
the Army and Marine Corps estimates, to include the planned
funding resources, and any other issue the Comptroller General
determines appropriate with respect to the Army and Marine
Corps reset cost estimates.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing or deliver a report to the committee no later than
March 15, 2015.
Army Emergency Management Program
The 2009 Army Emergency Management Program sought to
integrate planning, execution, and response management to all-
hazard incidents affecting Army installations and activities.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief
the congressional defense committees on the status of and plans
for Army emergency management training no later than August 1,
2015.
Availability of funds for readiness
Over the course of the last year, senior Department of
Defense (DOD) leaders, both military and civilian, have urged
the committee to help DOD restore military readiness. The bill
recommended by the committee seeks to achieve this objective by
preserving the full amount of funding for operation and
maintenance (O&M) requested by DOD, while shifting funds within
O&M accounts to meet high priority readiness needs. The
committee urges DOD, in executing the fiscal year 2015 defense
program, to avoid any funding transfers that would reduce O&M
funding. To the extent additional funds become available for
reprogramming during the course of the fiscal year, for
example, as unobligated funds become available from fact-of-
life delays and under execution, then, the committee urges DOD
to consider transfers that would help address high priority
readiness needs.
Budget execution for Kwajalein Atoll
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit
with the fiscal year 2016 President's budget submission a
report for the Kwajalein Garrison on the type and level of
funding over the future years defense program. The report
should identify the performing Army agency for each category of
funding and should also include a 10-year profile of planned
facilities recapitalization.
Category I ammunition items
The committee notes that Category I ammunition items,
including certain man-portable missiles and rockets, are highly
explosive, extremely lethal, and a potential threat if they
were to be used by unauthorized individuals or groups. To help
protect these items and minimize the risk of loss or theft, it
is critical that the Department of Defense (DOD), among other
security measures, have sound inventory controls and
accountability. The committee notes that recent Government
Accountability Office reports on inventory management have
found that DOD information systems used to facilitate inventory
management have some limitations that prevent DODs ability to
have Department-wide visibility of its inventory, including
Category I ammunition items.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which the
military Services, in accordance with policies and procedures,
have: (1) Established and maintained serial number registration
and reporting of these assets; (2) Conducted physical
inventories as a check against the accountability record,
including recording adjustments to inventory and the rationale
for such adjustments; and (3) Established procedures for
maintaining proper accountability for shipped assets (i.e. when
custody for the asset is transferred to another entity).
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide
such a report to this committee no later than March 15, 2015.
Coal-to-liquid report
The Senate Report 113-44 accompanying S. 1197, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, required the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy, to submit a report to the committee on the feasibility
of potential technologies that could enable coal-to-liquid
(CTL) fuels to meet the requirements of the Department of
Defense (DOD) consistent with section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) by
February 1, 2014.
The committee remains concerned that DOD has yet to provide
that required report to the committee. The committee did
receive an interim response delaying the report because DOD is
working in consultation with the Department of Energy to ensure
the most thorough examination occurs.
Accordingly, the committee expects the Secretary of Defense
to deliver the required CTL report no later than July 31, 2014,
in accordance with the commitment made in the interim response.
Combatant Command Support Agent accounting
The committee reported in Senate Report 113-44 accompanying
Senate bill S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) on page 85
that: The committee notes the Operation and Maintenance budget
justification material within the Air Force's Combatant
Commander Direct Mission Support and Combatant Commanders Core
Operations (Lines 130 and 140) accounts are a consolidation of
multiple combatant commands under the purview of the Air Force
as Combatant Commander Support Agent. The committee is
concerned that due to this consolidation, the justification
material lacks the level of detail necessary for this committee
to make informed budget decisions. Accordingly, the committee
directs the services to annually deliver independent, detailed
budget justification for each combatant command they are
assigned Combatant Command Support Agent responsibility.
The consolidated manner in which combatant command material
is presented provides an incomplete depiction of combatant
command budgets, fails to provide the necessary detail required
to justify the budget request, and introduces confusion into
congressional processes. This lack of detail related to
specific budget items was directly attributable to past
misperceptions about unjustified increases. These perceived
increases led to reductions to combatant command accounts in
the fiscal year 2013 NDAA which necessitated reprogramming
actions at considerable expense in time and effort.
Language was explicitly inserted into the fiscal year 2014
NDAA to correct these shortfalls, but examination of the fiscal
year 2015 congressional justification material incorporated in
the fiscal year 2015 Budget Estimates, Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force, Volume 1, clearly demonstrates the Air
Force failed to make the corrective action as directed.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
brief the congressional defense committees on actions they will
take to ensure that the level of detail is provided in the
budget exhibits to ensure the needs of the combatant commanders
are met. This briefing is to occur no later than October 1,
2014.
Comptroller General of the United States report on the Department of
the Army actions to determine the appropriate structure of the
Army
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees on a comprehensive review of the Department of the
Army's data, analysis, decisionmaking processes, and plans for
structuring, readying, and managing the forces of the Army,
including the regular Army, the Army National Guard, and the
Army Reserve. The required report will include a description
and assessment of the manner in which the Department of the
Army determines the size and force mixtures of the components
of the Army in order to fulfill the national security missions
of the Army, including any data on cost, readiness,
effectiveness, and other factors available and used by the
Department in making that determination. The Comptroller
General shall provide an interim briefing not later than March
1, 2015, and a final report on March 1, 2016.
Comptroller General review of readiness
The committee recognizes that for many years the Department
of Defense (DOD) has used C-ratings to measure unit readiness
of its forces. The Global Status of Resources and Training
System (GSORTS) was created to measure unit readiness in terms
of resources with respect to authorized and assigned or on-hand
personnel and equipment, the operating status of equipment, and
the level of training achieved. GSORTS was then able to capture
``ready with what.'' Later, Defense Readiness Reporting System
was intended to take readiness reporting a step further to
capture and incorporate, ``ready for what.'' More recently, in
support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, some
units have repeatedly been deployed and task organized to
execute missions that have differed from their core functions
or the types of military operations for which the unit is
designed. Accordingly, the DOD added assigned mission and
capability ratings to its traditional C-ratings. The Services
and combatant commands also began reporting readiness
assessment levels (RA-levels) to capture their strategic
readiness.
The committee is concerned that these metrics do not fully
capture or articulate the time component of readiness. For
example, the C-ratings and assigned mission ratings tend to
emphasize readiness at a particular point in time, or the day
the rating is achieved. Meanwhile, capability and RA-ratings
have an implied time component as they measure readiness
against timelines required to support operation and contingency
plans. However, the committee is concerned that none of these
metrics clearly answer the question of when forces, if not
fully manned, trained, equipped, and ready, will be ready for
sourcing decisions or risk assessment. Throughout the last
decade of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, too often
the appropriate level of readiness for deploying active and
reserve component units was achieved ``just in time'' prior to
deployment. In some cases, training shortfalls or changes in
mission required additional training in theater prior to
operational employment of a unit.
In an era of fiscal uncertainty and significant risk to
resources, the committee believes ``just in time'' does not
adequately inform strategic and operational risk assessments
nor distinguish which units can provide ready forces to meet
combatant commander requirements.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to report to the congressional defense committees not later
than March 1, 2015, analyzing the extent to which time is or
has been incorporated as a quantitative or qualitative
component of current and past readiness metrics. The analysis
shall describe any efforts the Services, combatant commands,
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.
Continued Defense-wide and interagency collaboration in the military
working dog program
The committee recognizes the value of military working dogs
(MWD) in support of the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces. MWDs
have been important to the Department of Defense (DOD) in
support of military training and combat operations. The MWD
program covers a broad range of military missions, including
security and patrol, explosives detection, search and rescue,
and guard duties. Furthermore, MWDs are expected to operate in
the harshest of climates and support our troops in combat. The
joint nature of the MWD program also requires a high level of
interoperability. The 341st Training Squadron at Lackland Air
Force Base consolidates training for MWDs across DOD and other
federal agencies. This consolidation helps to ensure uniformity
of training, promotes the valuable exchange of experience and
ideas, and enhances interoperability.
The committee believes that the MWD program should continue
its current collaboration efforts in the field of training and
research. The committee also believes that through a
coordinated effort between DOD, federal agencies, the
veterinary community, universities, and other research centers,
the MWD program will continue to provide useful mission
support.
Finally, the committee encourages DOD to continue to
develop its training and research to include expanding its
interaction with outside entities in order to better serve our
Nation's security and combat capabilities.
Depot capital investment program
The committee remains concerned that the Army and the Navy
continually fail to appropriately invest in the capital budgets
of the covered depots required by law. Section 2476, title 10
of United States Code, requires that at least 6 percent of the
average total combined maintenance, repair, and overhaul
workload funded at all the depots of a military department be
reinvested into depot infrastructure and capital assets.
The committee commends the Air Force for investing 7.6
percent in fiscal year 2013, planning 8.9 percent in fiscal
year 2014, and 9.5 percent in fiscal year 2015, despite the
negative effects of sequestration. Conversely, the committee
notes that the Navy plans to only invest 3.4 percent and the
Army only 3.6 percent in fiscal year 2015.
The committee strongly urges the Army and the Navy to
adhere to their statutory requirements with respect to the
minimum capital investment program. Furthermore, with the
drawdown of combat operations and likely prospect of declining
depot workload, the Department of Defense should engage with
the committee if the previous 3-year average workload
calculation is no longer an appropriate benchmark for capital
depot investment.
Lastly, the committee notes that in the operation and
maintenance budget tables, the committee recommends funding
increases which will meet the minimum capital investment
threshold of 6 percent across all the military services, as
required by law.
Enhanced visibility for credentialing and installation access programs
and systems
The committee is concerned that there is a lack of
coordination among the efforts of the military services and
defense agencies to support credentialing at defense
installations, which is a key component of addressing the
insider threat problem. No single office in the Department of
Defense (DOD) is responsible for this effort or even tracks all
of the programs and systems used for credentialing throughout
DOD. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees
concurrent with the budget submission for fiscal year 2016 that
identifies all DOD credentialing and physical access control
programs and systems, including commercially contracted
services and other commercially provided services.
The report should cover all programs and systems intended
to provide credentials and/or manage installation access of
uniformed members, civilian employees, military dependents,
military retirees, vendors, contractors, suppliers, service
providers, and visitors. The report should also include all
programs and systems the services and DOD have operationally
deployed in research and development and in pilot or prototype
demonstration.
The report shall also include an estimate of the total cost
to DOD for such credentialing, including both direct and
indirect costs. This report shall be submitted in an
unclassified form.
Humanitarian Demining Training Center
The committee recognizes and expresses its support of the
Department of Defense (DOD) Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA)
program and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's
Humanitarian Demining Training Center (HDTC) and its mission to
train and prepare U.S. military forces and U.S. Government HMA
stakeholders, who in turn train U.S. foreign partners to
conduct HMA missions in the detection and clearance of
landmines and other explosive remnants of war, as well as the
disposal, demilitarization, physical security, and stockpile
management of potentially dangerous stockpiles of explosive
ordnance. This training delivers direct benefits to host
nations while giving U.S. teams valuable field experience,
given that U.S. forces might not otherwise deploy to these
nations. HDTC works with many U.S. Government agencies, the
United Nations, and non-governmental mine action organizations,
as appropriate, serving as a clearinghouse and collector of
mine action information for the U.S. Government. The HDTC also
helps develop new demining methods and technology appropriate
for lesser developed countries.
The committee, therefore, encourages the HDTC and DOD HMA
program to continue engaging 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.
Improving energy efficiency and performance of military platforms
The committee notes the critical role that fundamental
understanding of aerodynamics, physics, and fluid dynamics play
in support of Department of Defense (DOD) goals to enhance the
energy efficiency of military platforms. For example, the
design and development of systems that reduce the drag caused
by turbulent air flow can often enhance the performance of
military platforms and munitions, including reducing fuel
consumption and enhancing flight performance.
The committee notes that there exists only limited domestic
laboratory experimentation and computer simulation capability
to study these technical issues. The committee recommends that
the Secretary of Defense coordinate, and to the extent
appropriate, collaborate with government laboratories,
universities, and other research facilities and organizations
pursuing military-relevant aerodynamics, physics, fluid
dynamics, and other related research to ensure that DOD derives
maximum value and combat capability from ongoing advances in
these important disciplines.
Incentivizing alternative fuel and fuel cell vehicle refueling stations
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to report to the
committee on options to support the development and deployment
of alternative fuel vehicle refueling stations, to include
electric, fuel cell, and compressed natural gas vehicles on
Department of Defense (DOD) property.
The committee is interested in an analysis of possible
financing tools including, but not necessarily limited to,
competitive federal research awards, contracts, credit
assistance, public-private partnerships, coordinated government
purchase strategies, and membership-based cooperatives.
The committee notes that DOD actions should be consistent
with national security priorities and market conditions.
The Secretary shall deliver the report to the committee no
later than March 1, 2015.
Jungle training
The committee understands that after more than a decade of
combat operations in the Middle East, the Department of Defense
(DOD) is rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region. As a result,
the committee is concerned with the potential challenges that
the Armed Forces may face if operating in tropical environments
which exist in the Asia-Pacific region. Among other challenges,
triple canopy covers, dense vegetation, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance difficulties, and limited
sources of potable water could make for difficult conditions
where training and education will be vital for success in
combat operations.
The committee understands that the U.S. Army Jungle
Operations Training Center (JOTC) at Fort Sherman, Panama, was
closed in 1999. The committee notes that DOD does not currently
have an organic ability to train soldiers for jungle
operations, and has been sending military servicemembers in
small numbers to various countries for jungle training.
The committee also recognizes that the 25th Infantry
Division (ID) at Schofield Barracks has recently begun training
for jungle operations. The committee recognizes that there is a
valid need for this type of training and appreciates the
efforts of the 25th ID to prepare soldiers for jungle
operations. The committee understands that the Army has not
programmed resources specifically for jungle training and is
conducting the training out of existing budgetary resources. It
appears that sufficient resources may not be aligned and
executed in a coordinated effort to provide this important
training.
Accordingly, the committee encourages DOD to allocate the
appropriate amount of coordinated resources, if DOD determines
that there is a valid need to continue to provide jungle
training to military personnel.
Management of conventional ammunition inventory
The committee recognizes the efforts of the Department of
Defense (DOD) to modernize, transform, and integrate the
Services' ammunition logistics database. The committee has
reviewed current inefficiencies that resulted in diminished
accountability per a recent report by the Government
Accountability Office. Accordingly, no later than 180 days
after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
provide a report to this committee identifying an authoritative
DOD-wide repository of data on conventional ammunition,
together with the total cost and timeframe for implementation,
that: (1) Uses a standard data exchange format consistent with
the Defense Logistics Management Standards Office; (2) Provides
a single source of conventional ammunition data as inputs into
DOD decision support systems, such as those used for readiness
reporting and operational planning; (3) Collects comprehensive,
accurate data, consistent with federal internal control
standards, from other service ammunition systems in order to
provide real-time or near-real-time total ammunition asset
visibility; (4) Enables quarterly stratified reporting through
the Office of the Executive Director for Conventional
Ammunition or another authority; and (5) Meets the conventional
ammunition data functionality needs of all DOD components that
require visibility of these data.
Additionally, the committee directs that all stratified
reporting will include complete and detailed accounting for all
ammunition that in a previous year was unclaimed by another
service and categorize for disposal.
Marine Corps Prepositioning Program--Norway
The committee recognizes that the Marine Corps
Prepositioning Program--Norway (MCPP-N) was established as part
of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Cold War posture and
relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The
committee notes that equipment use from MCPP-N has
predominantly been for training and joint exercises in Europe
rather than to supplement equipment shortfalls for combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee is concerned
that over the past 35 years, only 11 percent of the total use
of MCPP-N has gone to support major combat operations.
In the past, the DOD has stated that the need for
prepositioning materiel and equipment should be based on
requirements for an approved operation plan, but the Marine
Corps has stated that there is no direct operation plan impacts
currently associated with MCPP-N. The committee recognizes the
current situation in Ukraine could have an effect on future
plans for MCPP-N.
The committee also notes that over the next several years,
the Marine Corps plans to transition MCPP-N's equipment profile
from primarily engineering and transportation equipment to
support a capabilities-based Marine Aviation Group Task Force
(MAGTF) as soon as the end of fiscal year 2015. The Marine
Corps has indicated that the MCPP-N will include additional
equipment to support specialized capability sets, security
cooperation packages, and retain the ability to augment up to a
Marine Expeditionary Brigade-sized force.
The committee is concerned that MCPP-N recently only had 48
percent of its major equipment items on hand. Additionally, the
committee is concerned that it is unclear what the full cost of
the planned transition and operation to support MAGTF
capabilities will be in the years to come. Lastly, the
committee notes that the most recent Government Accountability
Office review of MCPP-N was in 1989.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to prepare a briefing or report to the committee no later than
March 1, 2015 on: (1) How MCPP-N supports the overall DOD and
Marine Corps prepositioning program; (2) The Marine Corps'
prepositioning plans for MCPP-N, how they were developed, and
the military requirements they address; (3) The unique
capabilities, if any, that MCPP-N provides to meet the
prepositioning requirements of EUCOM and AFRICOM; and (4) the
funding plan to transition MCPP-N to support MAGTF capabilities
and the future projected costs to the United States and Norway.
Measuring Department of Defense use of commercial cloud computing
capabilities and services
The committee believes that the use of cloud computing to
support Department of Defense (DOD) computing missions can lead
to significantly higher performance and reduced costs, while
leveraging the innovative capacity of the commercial
information technology (IT) sector, and maintaining required
security and reliability to meet DOD needs. The committee notes
that the President's fiscal year 2015 budget materials
indicated that ``as a result of the Administration's Cloud
First policy, Federal agencies adopting cloud-based IT systems
are increasing operational efficiencies, resource utilization,
and innovation across the Government.'' The committee is
concerned that DOD is not moving expeditiously in evaluating
and adopting market-tested commercial approaches to cloud
computing to meet mission needs.
Accordingly, the committee directs the DOD Chief
Information Officer to sponsor an independent study to develop
metrics to assess DOD's progress in evaluating and adopting
commercial cloud capabilities. The committee recommends that
metrics could include: cost savings or avoidance to DOD
programs through use of commercial cloud services; the
technical merit, relevance, and value of additional DOD
security requirements on commercial cloud providers relative to
the requirements mandated by the government-wide and industry-
supported Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program;
the trends in new applications or services being hosted on
military-unique clouds or computing centers versus commercial
clouds; the time required to review, analyze, and accredit
commercial cloud capabilities by DOD; and the application of
DOD security and other controls to applications, systems, and
services being hosted on military-unique clouds or computing
centers relative to those being applied to potential commercial
cloud systems.
The study also should assess and compare the features,
performance, costs, and functionality of the ``milcloud''
(military cloud) developed by the Defense Information Systems
Agency using government contractors to the leading commercial
cloud technology.
The study should be delivered to the congressional defense
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act.
Mission-critical electricity infrastructure adoption of National
Institute of Standards and Technology Cyber Security Framework
The committee notes that in a report delivered in January
2008, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Department of
Defense (DOD) Energy Strategy concluded that, ``Military
installations are almost completely dependent on a fragile and
vulnerable commercial power grid, placing critical military and
Homeland defense missions at an unacceptable risk of extended
outage.'' The report cited potential cyber-attack as a key
source of risk to utility grids supplying power to mission-
critical military facilities, noting that, ``U.S. grid control
systems are continuously probed electronically, and there have
been numerous attempted attacks on the Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems that operate the grid.''
Additionally, the task force underscored the overwhelming
consequences of electricity grid failures, finding that, ``in
addition to degrading national military and Homeland defense
capabilities, failure of the grid for any extended period could
significantly affect national economic and social stability.
Pumps that move natural gas and oil through pipelines rely on
electricity, as do refineries, communications systems, water
and sewage systems, hospitals, traffic systems, first response
systems, border crossing detection systems and major
transportation hubs such as airports.''
The committee remains concerned about DOD's continued
dependence on ``a fragile and vulnerable commercial power
grid,'' particularly in light of proven cyber-attack
capabilities and demonstrated intent of adversaries to use
cyber means to target U.S. and foreign electricity
infrastructure. While the committee recognizes that military
installations that rely on commercial electricity utilities
have made some important strides in bolstering cyber defenses,
there is no question that electricity grids supplying power to
mission-critical DOD facilities remain highly vulnerable to
cyber-attacks by nation-states and other sophisticated actors.
The committee notes that in February 2014, pursuant to
Executive Order 13636, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) issued the initial iteration of a voluntary
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,
designed to leverage existing standards, guidelines, and best
practices to reduce cyber risk to critical infrastructure. The
framework articulates a ``framework core,'' which ``presents a
set of cybersecurity activities, desired outcomes, and
applicable references--including existing industry and
governmental standards, guidelines, and best practices--that
are common across critical infrastructure sectors.''
The committee notes that the Department has begun to take
some action to address electric power resilience for military
installations, in response to section 2822 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 (P.L. 112-81).
The committee further notes that in February 2014, the
Department of Energy issued the Electricity Subsector
Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (ES-C2M2), which was
designed to be ``an easily scalable tool for the subsector's
implementation of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Cyber Security Framework.''
The committee believes that the issuance of the NIST
Framework and the ES-C2M2, as well as the positive embrace of
these tools by many entities within the electricity subsector,
are welcome signs that commercial electricity utilities are
taking active measures to improve cyber defenses. However, the
committee is concerned that the DOD may not have adequately
assessed the extent to which these measures have, specifically,
helped to address vulnerabilities in power grids serving
mission-critical military installations.
In order to assess continued vulnerability of mission-
critical military installations to power grid cyber-attacks,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to undertake an
inventory of mission-critical electricity infrastructure. This
inventory shall include: (1) Identification of each mission-
critical military facility located within the United States;
(2) Identification of the electricity infrastructure, including
the utilities or entities operating such infrastructure, upon
which each identified mission-critical military facility is
directly dependent for electricity (for the purposes of this
inventory, such infrastructure should be limited to
infrastructure which, if destroyed or degraded, would directly
cause a power outage to a mission-critical military facility);
and (3) A survey of whether each identified electricity
infrastructure states that it has adopted or is adopting the
framework core of the NIST Framework for Improving Critical
Infrastructure Cybersecurity.
The committee further directs the Secretary to provide a
report to Congress, within 360 days of the date of enactment of
this Act, summarizing the results of the inventory. The report
shall be unclassified, with a classified annex, as appropriate.
Multi-modal retrograde contracts
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
Inspector General (IG) found that the DOD did not have
effective controls over the storing and handling of retrograde
equipment at aerial ports of debarkation (APOD) in Afghanistan.
The DOD IG also found that U.S. Transportation Command
(TRANSCOM) contracting officials did not establish effective
security and oversight requirements to safeguard cargo staged
for shipment at APOD in Afghanistan. The DOD IG stated that
this occurred because contracting officials omitted specific
security requirements, did not include effective monitoring and
surveillance requirements, and did not appoint any oversight
officials in Afghanistan. As a result, DOD has no assurance
that contractors are properly securing cargo at Bagram and
Kandahar APOD. Although existing contract language requires
contractors to use commercial best practices for security of
cargo, the DOD IG found that TRANSCOM was unaware of the
existence and adequacy of each multi-modal contractor's cargo
safeguarding procedures. For example, the DOD IG report
documented examples of military vehicles determined to be
ammunition-free arriving in Dubai and Baku with live ammunition
and trash inside.
The committee notes that without stronger contract
oversight, there is increased risk that equipment could be
lost, damaged, or vandalized in transit.
Accordingly, the committee directs TRANSCOM to prepare a
briefing or a report to the committee no later than January 1,
2015, on the contract modifications made to multi-modal
contracts to better define security and handling requirements
and a determination of the number and location of contractor
officer representatives necessary to provide adequate contract
oversight in Afghanistan. The briefing or report shall also
include the steps taken to create and implement standard
operating procedures and updates to the appropriate quality
assurance surveillance plans to ensure proper securing and
handling of equipment by military personnel, contractors, and
their subcontractors.
Navy fire control radar and replacement
The committee encourages initiatives that increase
operational availability rates and reduce the maintenance cost
of warfighting equipment, especially in the face of tightening
resources from implementation of the Budget Control Act (Public
Law 112-25). The committee understands that public-private
partnerships can allow government entities and private industry
to collaborate and develop unique efficiencies that may reduce
costs to the taxpayers when appropriately implemented.
No later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct
a review and submit a report to this committee examining the
Air Force public-partnership program for the repair of the dual
mode transmitter in the F-16 fire control radar. The review
shall determine the cost savings to date and the future
estimated annual cost savings that this program may have
achieved and to determine the feasibility and advisability of
other services adopting similar programs.
The committee notes that the Navy may benefit from pursuing
a similar public-private initiative for Navy aircraft,
including the F/A-18. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to examine the feasibility and
advisability of establishing a public-private partnership for
F/A-18 fire control radar module repair and refurbishment and
submit a report summarizing the findings to this committee no
later than September 30, 2014.
Network upgrades to the Kwajalein Garrison
The Kwajalein Garrison is the Nation's primary long-range
missile test support facility. It also hosts a number of
critical sensors supporting space situational awareness. It has
supported both of these missions for over 60 years and will
continue to do so for the foreseeable future given its unique
location. This committee has long-recognized the strategic
importance of this garrison and the surrounding atoll.
A critical element of the garrison is the permanent
workforce that maintains the unique sensor systems throughout
the atoll. It has come to the attention of the committee that
as late as January 2014, despite the recent availability of
broadband internet connectivity to the garrison, the workforce
and their families are required to use dial-up modems to
communicate with the mainland. This is a morale issue, given
many of the families who live on this atoll must arrange for
their children to apply online for college, some 5,000 miles
away, using a dial-up modem. At the request of the committee,
the U.S. Army's Network Command has undertaken an assessment of
the actions needed to upgrade the garrison's network and has
begun an implementation of these upgrades.
The committee believes that the most pressing item is to
ensure that the families who support this unique national
security resource have the ability to communicate over the
Internet comparable to that of their counterparts on the
mainland. On March 6, 2014, the Army reported to the committee
that initial efforts are now underway to permit the families on
the atoll to use high-speed capabilities resident with other
facilities of the garrison.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report
no later than September 30, 2014, on whether the families on
the garrison have high speed Internet support and, if not, the
reason why and what actions will be taken to remedy the
situation.
The committee further directs the Secretary of the Army,
based on the briefing given on March 6, 2014, to update the
committee in the form of a briefing no later than March 31,
2015, on what actions have been taken and are to be taken over
the future years defense program to upgrade the communications
infrastructure of the garrison.
Operational assessment of the Defense Readiness Reporting System
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2013 annual report
conducted by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
(DOT&E) found that the Defense Readiness Reporting System--
Strategic (DRRS-S) is not ready to proceed to initial
operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) based upon the system
deficiencies and lack of functionality demonstrated during an
operational assessment.
The committee remains concerned that despite congressional
direction for the Department of Defense (DOD) to first
establish DRRS-S to eventually replace the Global Status of
Resources and Training System (GSORTS) in the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public
Law 105-261), the DOD has failed to progress to IOT&E.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the
timeline and funding plan to provide DRRS-S with all the
capabilities required for GSORTS retirement. Additionally, the
briefing or report shall include a plan to have a certified red
team to conduct penetration and exploitation testing to verify
correction of the DOT&E's information assurance findings and
evaluate the ability of the DRRS-S to protect, detect, react,
and restore against an operationally relevant cyber-security
threat.
Operational energy benefits
The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's
fiscal year 2015 commitment to improving military capability,
reduce costs, and decrease tactical risk through efforts to
improve energy security and to better manage both operational
and installation energy.
For example, the committee understands that the Army's
planned Abrams tank auxiliary power unit will use 92 percent
less fuel idling and 9 percent less fuel during maneuvers.
Similarly, the improved turbine engine program for Blackhawk
and Apache helicopters is expected to reduce fuel use by 22
percent, reduce maintenance costs by 35 percent, and increase
engine life by 20 percent compared to current engines, saving
almost 14.0 million gallons of fuel per year. The committee
also notes the fleet-wide average fuel savings is 21 percent
with the fielding of advanced medium mobile power sources
generators.
The committee also recognizes the role operational energy
(OE) advisors have played on forward operating bases (FOBs).
For example, one OE helped the Department save 2.5 million
gallons in annual fuel avoidance, which equates to 1,000 fuel
trucks not having to traverse dangerous roads and limits
exposure to enemy attacks. Similarly, many FOBs require aerial
resupply every 3 days with fuel and water making up 70 percent
of the cargo. The investments made to date in new and emerging
OE technologies decrease resupply convoys to every 10 days,
again reducing risk and vulnerability of attacks to troops.
Additionally, the return on investment captured by energy
savings with more efficient shelter and tent liners can pay for
the upfront cost in less than 1 year.
The committee is encouraged by the Navy's focus on
enhancing combat capability, increasing endurance and range,
and using energy investments to increase readiness. Planned
technologies such as improved ship hull coatings, more
efficient stern flaps, and bow bulbs will create almost 1 week
of additional steaming days on the same amount of fuel. Hybrid
electric drives, currently installed in amphibious assault
ships, can add 10 steaming days which would allow the Navy and
Marine Corps more presence on station and to spend less time
refueling and replenishing at sea. Additionally, the committee
is encouraged by the Navy's efforts to program for energy
sustainment, restoration, and modernization projects which
factor in an energy return on investment and a yearly cost
avoidance of $15.1 million.
Consequently, the committee strongly encourages the
Department to continue the progress made towards improving the
military services' capabilities through appropriate investments
in operational and installation energy.
Soldier equipment modernization program
The committee notes that in the fiscal year 2015 budget
request the Army increased its soldier equipment modernization
program by $33.3 million, in addition to a baseline funding
request of $94.9 million. The committee understands that fiscal
year 2015 is the first year of a planned multi-year program to
provide next-generation organizational clothing and individual
equipment and personal protective equipment to soldiers. The
goal of the program is to provide life-saving and mission-
enhancing gear to soldiers with a lighter, scalable, and
adaptable protective capability that allows a greater range of
motion and more effective performance.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget
request will fund the next increment of brigade combat teams
with updated deployment equipment bundles containing enhanced
combat helmets, load-bearing equipment, cold weather clothing,
and flame resistant clothing.
The committee recognizes that for several years the Army's
rapid fielding initiative program, using overseas contingency
operations funding, has provided flame resistant clothing to
all deploying soldiers to minimize the risk of burn injuries
from improvised explosive devices. The committee notes that the
Army's flame resistant uniforms are approximately double the
cost of non-flame resistant uniforms. However, the committee is
encouraged that non-deployed soldiers who are the most at risk
to fire hazards, such as aviators, armor vehicle crewmen, and
fuel handlers, currently receive and will continue to receive
flame resistant uniforms specifically designed for their
military occupational specialty.
The committee is also encouraged by the Navy's recent
decision to field flame resistant coveralls to sailors aboard
ships that face an increased risk to fires in tight quarters.
Strategic military infrastructure to support operation plans
The committee remains concerned about the structural
condition and readiness status of the Military Ocean Terminal,
Concord (MOTCO) and the Lualualei (LLL) annex Oahu to support
the operational requirements of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM).
A recent report by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) found that while the Department of Defense (DOD) has
considered alternatives for mitigating a capability gap at
MOTCO, alternatives have not been coordinated among the
appropriate stakeholders, and DOD has not developed a
coordinated and detailed plan laying out alternatives. The GAO
also found that DOD has not agreed upon which set of
alternatives should be pursued.
The committee notes that given the potential for delays to
infrastructure repair work, the DOD could be accepting
additional risk to executing its war plans by waiting to
develop a plan to mitigate any potential capability gaps at
MOTCO and other strategic military infrastructure within PACOM.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing or report to the committee no later than
February 1, 2015, on MOTCO and the LLL annex, including: (1)
The funding strategy and mitigation plan to address any
structural and readiness concerns; (2) Any impacts to operation
plans; (3) Alternatives to mitigate any shortfalls that may
occur during a potential capability gap; (4) The status of
intra-service collaboration; and (5) The status of any relevant
environmental impacts statements. If appropriate, the briefing
or report may be submitted in a classified format.
Stryker sustainment
The committee notes that the Department of the Army
currently sustains the Stryker family of vehicles under a sole
source requirement and task order contract for ``manufacturing,
fielding, sustaining, improving, reset, retrofit,
recapitalization (recap) and overhaul of the Stryker Family of
Vehicles.'' The total estimated value of this contract is $5.1
billion. On January 30, 2012, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology determined that
only one source was qualified and capable of performing the
work at a reasonable price to the government.
In the justification for other than full and open
competition, the Army delineated the $5.1 billion, 3-year
contract into three broad categories: vehicles ($2.0 billion),
engineering support ($0.6 billion), and logistical support
($2.5 billion). This contract is up for renewal in October
2015. The committee understands that the Army currently intends
to award another contract for other than full and open
competition. Of the three broad categories cited in the Army's
justification document, it appears that logistical support
offers the Army an opportunity to compete this contract,
especially given the fact that eventually Stryker sustainment
is planned to be transitioned to an organic industrial base
capability.
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Army to
compete the logistical support aspect of the next Stryker
requirement and task order contract in order to maximize
efficiencies and cost savings.
Training for the Air Force weather program
The Air Force Weather Agency makes a significant
contribution to improving combat effectiveness of our
warfighters. The Air Force needs to modernize its weather
training programs to be able to continue that contribution. The
Air Force may be able to take advantage of different training
regimes as it modernizes its training programs, including
reliance on organic training, entering into or expanding
cooperative programs with other government agencies, such as
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
entering into or expanding cooperative programs with colleges
and universities that have meteorological training programs.
The committee believes that the Air Force needs to investigate
whether the service could improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of its weather training programs by placing greater
reliance on cooperative training programs. If this
investigation shows promise for such programs, the committee
encourages the Air Force to explore the options further.
Use of power purchase agreements to meet requirements for Military
installations
The committee notes that on April 16, 2014, the Acting
Deputy Secretary of Defense signed out Department of Defense
(DOD) Directive 4180.01, ``DOD Energy Policy,'' to provide a
common energy framework to guide the full range of defense
energy activities, including operational energy, facilities
energy, and energy-related elements of mission assurance. The
Directive established the DOD policy to enhance military
capability, improve energy security, and mitigate costs in its
use and management of energy.
The committee notes that in support of this policy, the DOD
has increased the use of Power Purchase Agreements (PPA), in
conjunction with the authority provided by section 2922a of
Title 10, United States Code, to enter into long-term contracts
of up to 30 years in order to generate or provide power for a
military installation. These contracts have the potential to
achieve cost savings while improving energy security by
ensuring a reliable power supply to a military facility or
installation.
The committee believes that PPAs, like authorities provided
for military housing and other utilities, offer a substantial
benefit to DOD by addressing the need for a reliable energy
source with no upfront capital costs. The private sector
finances and installs an energy generating system on land owned
by DOD or on private land. A private entity owns, operates, and
maintains the system and DOD agrees to purchase the power
generated by the system over the life of the contract. A PPA
generally shifts performance risk of the project from the
government to the contractor. DOD is able to establish a known
long-term electricity price for a portion of site load. A PPA
provides a reliable power supply at a predictable cost for
budget stability.
The committee notes that DOD guidance on the use of section
2922a recognizes the authority to enter into a contract for
energy generating projects without the capital costs of
construction either on a military installation or on private
property. The committee also notes that, like housing
privatization, regional or portfolio approaches in a contract
that will provide energy to more than one military installation
may offer the potential for greater savings and best value. DOD
also has the flexibility to enter into contracts that consider
the availability of regional resources and use more than one
energy source to achieve greater efficiencies and lower costs.
In addition, section 2922a does not direct that a dedicated
transmission line or other additional infrastructure be
required for projects on private property if the availability
and use of existing power distribution infrastructure will
result in a lower cost over time. The committee encourages DOD
to use the flexibility contained within the authority to
maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of each contract.
The committee recognizes that Part 41.201 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulations requires DOD to obtain required utility
services from sources of supply which are most advantageous to
the Government in terms of economy, efficiency, reliability, or
service. While electricity prices are subject to market
pressures, locking in a reasonable rate over a longer period of
time will protect DOD from rate volatility. To that end, DOD
guidance for the approval by the Secretary of Defense of the
use of section 2922a requires the military service or defense
agency to provide an economic/business case analysis summary to
include the energy project cash flow display for each fiscal
year included within the contract. The committee believes this
analysis is critical to ensure that the projects enhance
military capability, improve energy security, and mitigate
costs.
The committee encourages DOD to continue to use PPAs and
the flexible authorities contained in section 2922a to take
full advantage of private sector financing for projects that
offer economy and reliability of service over time and ensure
rates equal to or lesser than projected energy rates over the
life of the contract.
War reserve stocks
The committee believes that a primary element of military
readiness is the sound management of adequate war reserves and
that an efficient and effective war reserve supply chain is
critical to support the warfighter in any theater of operations
and to serve our military personnel stationed around the world.
Accordingly, each military service establishes and maintains a
continuing war reserve program that reflects the policies and
guidance of the Secretary of Defense regarding enemy threats
and capabilities, along with the Nation's current military
strategy.
The committee is concerned that as military force structure
and combat operations decline over the next few years, coupled
with sequestration effects, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
will need to carefully balance the necessity of accurately
planning for contingency requirements and maintaining
sufficient war reserves to meet military requirements, along
with the appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars to avoid
excess procurement, storage, and transportation of war reserve
stocks.
Accordingly, the committee expects the DLA and the Services
to maximize fiscal year 2015 resources with the utmost priority
placed on maximizing cost-effectiveness in the planning,
procurement, and management of war reserve stocks. The
committee also directs the DLA and the Services to revisit and
reevaluate their policies regarding the management of war
reserve stocks in order to meet warfighter needs while avoiding
unnecessary excess, and to provide a report or briefing with
recommendations to the committee no later than March 1, 2015.
This reevaluation should focus on those elements of war reserve
stocks that the DLA and Services determine are most likely to
yield cost savings and efficiencies.
Additionally, the Comptroller General is directed to
review, report, and provide recommendations to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2015,
on the DLA's and the Services' efficiency and effectiveness of
their war reserve supply chain, and whether those war reserve
stocks accurately reflect revised end strength and force
structure requirements and achieve cost efficiencies in the
storage and transportation of such stocks.
Warrior power executive agent
The committee continues to be encouraged by the Department
of Defense's (DOD) efforts to pursue increased combat
capability, effectiveness, and efficiency to better support the
warfighter. For example, the committee recognizes that
significant progress has been made to date with respect to
individual warrior power systems and programs which provide
expeditionary power solutions designed for combat operations in
the most austere environments by increasing mobility, range,
and endurance.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to notify the congressional defense committees no later than
March 1, 2015, of the direction to designate a DOD executive
agent for warrior power to align and advance various ongoing
efforts across the Department, who is assigned specific
responsibilities, functions, and authorities to support
designated activities that involve two or more of the military
services.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
FY 2014 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2015 FY 2014
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.......................................... 520,000 490,000 490,000 0 -30,000
Navy.......................................... 323,600 323,600 323,600 0 0
Marine Corps.................................. 190,200 184,100 184,100 0 -6,100
Air Force..................................... 327,600 310,900 310,900 0 -16,700
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 1,361,400 1,308,600 1,308,600 0 -52,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
FY 2014 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2015 FY 2014
Request Recommendation 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 9,000 9,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves
(sec. 412)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
FY 2014 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2015 FY 2014
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 32,060 31,385 31,385 0 -675
Army Reserve.................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 10,159 9,973 9,973 0 -186
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for
the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last
day of fiscal year 2015, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
FY 2014 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2015 FY 2014
Request Recommendation 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians
(sec. 414)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2015,
as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
FY 2014 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2015 FY 2014
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 350 350 350 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 595 595 595 0 0
Air Force Reserve............................. 90 90 90 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 2,635 2,635 2,635 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for
operational support (sec. 415)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2015, as
shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
FY 2014 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2015 FY 2014
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0
Air Force Reserve............................. 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Military personnel (sec. 421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified
in section 4401 of division D of this Act.
Budget Item
Military personnel funding changes
The amount authorized to be appropriated for military
personnel programs in section 421 of this Act includes the
following changes from the budget request:
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Military Personnel Underexecution....................... -761.7
Reduction in meals-ready-to-eat......................... -20.0
Restore lost savings from COLA change repeal............ 500.0
Restore anticipated savings for TRICARE consolidation... 78.0
Increase CTC rotations for Army National Guard.......... 45.0
Additional ESGR State support specialists............... 4.0
Limit A-10 retirement................................... 82.8
Limit AWACS retirement.................................. 24.9
Total............................................... -47.0
The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military
Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $47.0 million. This
includes: (1) A reduction of $761.7 million to reflect the
Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment of
the average annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) A reduction of
$20.0 million to reflect the Defense Logistics Agency's
overstatement of meals-ready-to-eat inventory; (3) An increase
of $500.0 million to restore retirement accrual savings that
resulted from the revision in the cost-of-living adjustment to
military retired pay contained in section 403 of the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013 (H.J. Res. 59), and which were lost when
Congress grandfathered the current force from the effects of
that provision in section 2 of Public Law 113-82; (4) An
increase of $78.0 million to restore MILPERS savings
anticipated by the Department of Defense relative to its
proposal to consolidate the TRICARE program, which the
committee did not adopt; (5) An increase of $45.0 million to
support additional Combat Training Center rotations for the
Army National Guard; (6) An increase of $4.0 million for the
Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve to
increase the number of State support specialists; (7) An
increase of $82.8 million to fund additional personnel required
relative to a limitation on retiring A-10s contained elsewhere
in this Act; and (8) An increase of $24.9 million to fund
additional personnel relative to a limitation on retiring AWACS
contained elsewhere in this Act.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Authority for three-month deferral of retirement for officers selected
for selective early retirement (sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 581 and 638 of title 10, United States Code, to
clarify the date by which warrant officers and regular officers
on the active-duty list who have been selected for selective
early retirement must retire.
Repeal of limits on percentage of officers who may be recommended for
discharge during a fiscal year under enhanced selective
discharge authority (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 638a of title 10, United States Code, by deleting the
limitation on the total number of officers that a selection
board may recommend for early discharge under enhanced
selective discharge authority.
Elimination of requirement that a qualified aviator or naval flight
officer be in command of an inactivated nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier before decommissioning (sec. 503)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5942(a) of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate
the requirement that a qualified aviator or naval flight
officer serve as commanding officer of a nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier that has been inactivated during the limited
period between the inactivation and permanent decommissioning
prior to disposal.
Authority to limit consideration for early retirement by selective
retirement boards to particular warrant officer year groups and
specialties (sec. 504)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 581(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries to establish selection objectives, by year
group or specialty, or any combination thereof, for selection
boards considering warrant officers for selective retirement.
Repeal of requirement for submittal to Congress of annual reports on
joint officer management and promotion policy objectives for
joint officers (sec. 505)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 662 and 667 of title 10, United States Code, removing
the requirement that the Secretary of Defense submit annual
reports to Congress on joint officer management and promotion
policy objectives for joint officers.
The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would
continue to oversee the success of the military departments in
meeting joint officer management program requirements.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Retention on reserve active-status list following nonselection for
promotion of certain health professions officers and first
lieutenants and lieutenants (junior grade) pursuing
baccalaureate degrees (sec. 511)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 14701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
consideration for continuation on the reserve active-status
list of first lieutenant and lieutenant (junior grade) health
professions officers who have twice failed of selection for
promotion to the next higher grade. The provision would also
require service secretaries to retain on the reserve active-
status list health professions officers who would otherwise be
required to be removed from the reserve active-status list
until the officer has completed his or her service obligation.
Database on military technician positions (sec. 512)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a centralized
database of military technician positions within the Department
of Defense (DOD).
The committee notes that the September 30, 2013, Center for
Naval Analyses report titled, ``Report on the Termination of
Military Technician as a Distinct Personnel Management
Category,'' criticized DOD for lacking data that clearly
identifies military technicians as a ``fundamental problem''
inhibiting oversight of a complex personnel program. The
committee directs the Secretary to report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
by no later than January 1, 2015, on the numbers of military
technicians within DOD, dual status and non-dual status, where
they are assigned, and a short description of their assigned
duties, as of September 30, 2014.
Improved consistency in suicide prevention and resilience program for
the reserve components of the Armed Forces (sec. 513)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe a policy for the development
of a standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing
suicide data and suicide attempt data involving members of the
National Guard and Reserves, and to submit this policy to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve (sec. 514)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve to take
appropriate actions to increase the number of program support
specialists in the States.
To support this requirement, the committee recommends
moving $4.0 million from funds available for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force, for the F-15
Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, to the
military personnel appropriation.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Enhancement of participation of mental health professionals in boards
for correction of military records and boards for review of
discharge or dismissal of members of the Armed Forces (sec.
521)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, to require that
any medical advisory opinion issued to a board for correction
of military records regarding a servicemember who was diagnosed
while serving in the military as experiencing a mental health
disorder include the opinion of a clinical psychologist or
psychiatrist if the individual's request for correction of
records relates to a mental health disorder.
The provision would also amend section 1553 of title 10,
United States Code, to require boards for review of discharge
or dismissal: (1) To include a member who is a clinical
psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with additional
training and experience to provide advice on specialized
medical or psychological matters relating to post-traumatic
stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries, when the board
considers a request for review of a discharge or dismissal by a
former servicemember who was diagnosed as experiencing post-
traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury as a
consequence of a deployment in support of a contingency
operation; and (2) To include a member who is a clinical
psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with additional
training and experience to provide advice on specialized
medical or psychological matters relating to mental health
disorders, when the board considers a request for review of a
discharge or dismissal by a former servicemember who was
diagnosed while serving in the military as experiencing a
mental health disorder.
The committee expects that boards for review of discharge
or dismissal would consider a new application for relief by a
former servicemember when the member's prior application was
denied by a board whose membership did not include a clinical
psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with additional
training and experience as required by this provision.
Extension of authority to conduct programs on career flexibility to
enhance retention of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 522)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as amended by
section 531 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), by extending the
authority to conduct programs on career flexibility to December
31, 2018, with a deadline to return all participants to active
duty by no later than December 31, 2021, adjusting interim and
final report due dates to reflect the extended authority and
deadline, and by requiring certain additional elements of
information in the final reports.
Sense of Senate on validated gender-neutral occupational standards for
all military occupations (sec. 523)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate concerning the development of validated
gender-neutral occupational standards pursuant to the ongoing
process of reviewing and opening positions and occupations to
women that are currently closed.
Comptroller General of the United States report on impact of certain
mental and physical trauma on discharges from military service
for misconduct (sec. 524)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report on
the impact of mental and physical trauma relating to post
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury,
behavioral health matters not related to PTSD, and other
neurological combat traumas on the discharge of servicemembers
for misconduct.
Sense of Senate on upgrade of characterization of discharge of certain
Vietnam era members of the Armed Forces (sec. 525)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that Boards for Correction of Military
Records, when considering a request for correction of a less-
than-honorable discharge issued to a servicemember who served
during the Vietnam era, should take into account whether the
veteran was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) as a result of such service.
Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report within 180 days on the plans of the military
departments to address requests for upgrades of discharges of
Vietnam era members of the Armed Forces who may have suffered
from service-related PTSD. The report shall include the
following elements:
(1) Guidance to Boards for Correction of Military
Records and Discharge Review Boards regarding the
application of medically appropriate standards to
evaluate discharge upgrade applications based in whole
or in part on PTSD or other mental health conditions;
(2) Guidance to Boards for Correction of Military
Records and Discharge Review Boards on use of
information in military service records and
consideration of post-discharge diagnoses of PTSD that
are related to their military service that the boards
may consider when evaluating a request for an upgrade
of a discharge, and consideration of waiving any
statute of limitations for either new applicants or
those previously denied for upgrade applications
covered by this section;
(3) The feasibility of use of video conference
capabilities by Boards for Correction of Military
Records and Discharge Review Boards, and other
initiatives to increase the number of in-person
hearings granted;
(4) A resourcing plan for the timely consideration of
applications from all eligible individuals;
(5) Outreach initiatives to those eligible to seek a
discharge upgrade and available pro bono legal services
to assist them;
(6) Information provided concerning the right to
judicial review and the availability of free legal
services, such as those established in collaboration
with the Department of Justice's Access to Justice
Initiative, in letters from the Boards advising
applicants of adverse decisions; and
(7) Compliance with the requirement for inclusion in
membership of the Boards for Correction of Military
Records and Discharge Review Boards of a physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist when
adjudicating applications based in whole or in part on
PTSD or other medical condition.
Subtitle D--Member Education and Training
Enhancement of authority for members of the Armed Forces to obtain
professional credentials (sec. 531)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security,
with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a
service of the Navy, to carry out a program to enable members
of the Armed Forces to obtain professional credentials while
they are serving that relate to training and skills acquired
during military service.
Authority for Joint Special Operations University to award degrees
(sec. 532)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 108 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
President of the Joint Special Operations University to confer
appropriate degrees upon graduates who meet degree
requirements. A degree could not be conferred unless the
Secretary of Education has recommended approval of the degree
in accordance with the Federal Policy Governing Granting of
Academic Degrees by Federal Agencies, and the Joint Special
Operations University is accredited by the appropriate civilian
academic accrediting agency or organization to award the
degree.
Enhancement of information provided to members of the Armed Forces and
veterans regarding use of Post-9/11 Educational Assistance and
Federal financial aid through Transition Assistance Program
(sec. 533)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, by no later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, to provide additional information to
servicemembers in the transition assistance program concerning
certain education benefits available to them, and to ensure
that the higher education component of the transition
assistance program is available to members of the Armed Forces
on an Internet web site of the Department of Defense.
Duration of foreign and cultural exchange activities at military
service academies (sec. 534)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 4345a, 6957b, and 9345a of title 10, United States
Code, to extend the period that foreign exchange personnel are
authorized to attend the U.S. Military Academy, the Naval
Academy, or the Air Force Academy when the service secretary
determines that the attendance of such persons contributes
significantly to the development of foreign language, cross-
cultural interactions and understanding, and cultural immersion
of cadets or midshipmen, from 2 weeks to 4 weeks.
Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters
Ordering of depositions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(sec. 541)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 49 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10
U.S.C. 849) to authorize the court-martial convening authority
or the military judge to order a deposition only if the party
requesting the deposition demonstrates that, due to exceptional
circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the
testimony of the prospective witness be taken and preserved for
use at an Article 32, UCMJ, preliminary hearing or a court-
martial.
Modification of Rule 513 of the Military Rules of Evidence, relating to
the privilege against disclosure of communications between
psychotherapists and patients (sec. 542)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, Rule 513 of the Military Rules of Evidence be
modified to: (1) Include communications with ``other licensed
mental health professionals'' within communications covered by
this privilege; (2) Clarify or eliminate the current exception
to the privilege when the admission or disclosure of a
communication is constitutionally required; (3) Require a party
seeking production or admission of records protected by the
privilege to show a specific factual basis demonstrating a
reasonable likelihood that the records or communications would
yield evidence admissible under an exception to the privilege,
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
requested information meets one of the enumerated exceptions to
the privilege, show that the information sought is not
cumulative of other available information, and show that the
party made reasonable efforts to obtain the same or similar
information through non-privileged sources; (4) Authorize the
military judge to conduct an in camera review only when the
moving party has satisfied these requirements and an
examination of the information is necessary to rule on the
production or admissibility of the records; and (5) Require
that any admission or disclosure be narrowly tailored.
Enhancement of victims' rights to be heard through counsel in
connection with prosecution of certain sex-related offenses
(sec. 543)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
Special Victims' Counsel to represent the victim of a sex-
related offense at any proceedings in connection with the
reporting, military investigation, and military prosecution of
the alleged sex-related offense. The provision would also
require that the Manual for Courts-Martial be modified not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act to
provide that when a victim of a sex-related offense has a right
to be heard in connection with the prosecution of such offense,
the victim may exercise that right through counsel, and would
also require service secretaries to establish policies and
procedures to ensure that counsel for the victim of an alleged
sex-related offense is provided prompt and adequate notice of
the scheduling of any hearing, trial, or other proceeding in
connection with the prosecution of that offense to afford
victim's counsel the opportunity to prepare for the proceeding.
Eligibility of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces
for assistance of Special Victims' Counsel (sec. 544)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
assistance of Special Victims' Counsel for a member of a
reserve component who is the victim of an alleged sex-related
offense and who is not otherwise eligible for military legal
assistance under section 1044 of this title.
Additional enhancements of military department actions on sexual
assault prevention and response (sec. 545)
The committee recommends a provision that would: (1)
Require Special Victim's Counsel to provide advice to victims
of sexual assault on the advantages and disadvantages of
prosecution by court-martial or a civilian court with
jurisdiction over the offense and would require that the
victim's preference be considered in the determination of
whether to prosecute the offense by court-martial or by a
civilian court; (2) Require service secretaries to ensure that
all written performance appraisals of servicemembers include an
assessment of the extent to which the servicemember being
evaluated supports the sexual assault prevention and response
program of the military service, and the performance appraisals
of commanding officers indicate the extent to which the
commanding officer has or has not established a command climate
in which allegations of sexual assault would be properly
managed and fairly evaluated and in which a victim can report
criminal activity, including sexual assault, without fear of
retaliation, including ostracism and group pressure; (3) Amend
section 1743(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to require that the 8-
day incident report of an unrestricted report of sexual assault
include a review of the most recent climate assessment for the
command or unit of the suspect and the command or unit of the
victim, and an assessment of whether another climate assessment
should be conducted; (4) Require the service secretaries to
establish a confidential process, through boards for correction
of military records, by which an individual who was the victim
of a sexual offense while in the military can challenge, on the
basis of being a victim of the offense, the terms or
characterization of the individual's discharge or separation;
and (5) Require that the Military Rules of Evidence be amended,
not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, to provide that the general military character of an
accused is not admissible for the purpose of showing the
probability of innocence of the accused for specified offenses.
Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sex-related
offenses for trial by court-martial if requested by chief
prosecutor (sec. 546)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1744 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to require that in any
case where a convening authority decides not to refer a charge
of a sex-related offense to trial by court-martial and the
chief prosecutor of the service concerned requests review of
the decision, the service secretary must review the decision as
a superior authority authorized to exercise general court-
martial convening authority.
Modification of Department of Defense policy on retention of evidence
in a sexual assault case to permit return of personal property
upon completion of related proceedings (sec. 547)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 586 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to authorize the return to
the rightful owner of personal property retained as evidence in
connection with an incident of sexual assault involving a
service member after the conclusion of all legal, adverse
action, and administrative proceedings related to the sexual
assault.
Inclusion of information on assaults in the Defense Sexual Assault
Incident Database (sec. 548)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue policies and procedures for the
inclusion of certain information obtained from restricted and
unrestricted reports of sexual assault, including known
information about the alleged assailant, in a sexual assault
database.
The committee expects that the policies and procedures to
implement this provision would ensure that information obtained
from restricted reports of sexual assault is made available
only to appropriate personnel for the limited purpose of
identifying alleged suspects in multiple restricted reports of
sexual assault. The committee expects that information in this
database will assist law enforcement personnel to identify and
investigate serial offenders. The committee also expects that
victims who may later learn the alleged suspect in their report
may have assaulted another person may be encouraged to change
restricted reports to unrestricted reports of sexual assault to
facilitate increased prosecutions of such serial offenders. The
committee is mindful that failure to properly safeguard the
privacy of the victim could risk the unintended and adverse
consequence of undermining the confidence of victims in the use
of the restricted report as a viable option for reporting
sexual assault. Therefore, the policies and procedures
developed to implement this provision should provide for
including in the database only information freely volunteered
by sexual assault victims who file restricted reports and to
ensure that victims are not coerced into providing this
information.
The committee is also mindful that the failure to properly
safeguard the identity of an alleged suspect resulting in
disclosure could risk unintended and adverse consequences for
the alleged suspects to include potential damage to their
personal and professional reputations without the due process
protections of the military justice system. Therefore, the
committee directs that policies and procedures developed to
implement this provision must also preserve the presumption of
innocence for alleged suspects.
The committee specifically directs that the information
concerning the identity of an alleged suspect may not be used
for any purpose related to assignment, training, or
advancement.
Technical revisions and clarifications of certain provisions in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
relating to the military justice system (sec. 549)
The committee recommends a provision would make technical
and clarifying corrections to various provisions of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66) relating to the military justice system.
Applicability of sexual assault prevention and response and related
military justice enhancements to military service academies
(sec. 550)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Service secretaries and the Secretary of Homeland Security to
ensure that the sexual assault prevention and response
provisions in title XVII of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) and the sexual
assault prevention and response provisions in this Act apply to
the military service academies.
Analysis and assessment of disposition of most serious offenses
identified in unrestricted reports on sexual assaults in annual
reports on sexual assaults in the Armed Forces (sec. 551)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1631 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to require that
the Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in
the Military include an analysis and assessment of the
disposition of the most serious offenses identified in
unrestricted reports of sexual assault.
Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense
of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 552)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a Defense
Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense
of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces to advise the Secretary
on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of rape,
forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct in
the Armed Forces and to submit a report on an annual basis to
the Secretary and to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
Collaboration between the Department of Defense and the Department of
Justice in efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault
(sec. 553)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General to jointly
develop, not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, a strategic framework for ongoing collaboration
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice
in their efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault.
Modification of term of judges of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces (sec. 554)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Section 942 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the
statutory termination date of the term of office of judges of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to
align the termination date with the starting date of the
Court's annual term.
Report on review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal
Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases (sec. 555)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1735 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to require the Secretary
of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, a report on the
Secretary's review of the Office of Diversity Management and
Equal Opportunity's role in sexual harassment cases.
Repeal of obsolete requirement to develop comprehensive management plan
to address deficiencies in data captured in the Defense
Incident-Based Reporting System (sec. 556)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 543(a) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to
remove the requirement that data concerning domestic violence
incidents be recorded in the Defense Incident Based Reporting
System (DIBRS). DIBRS is a criminal incident uniform crime
reporting system that does not lend itself to recording
domestic violence incidents because domestic violence is not an
enumerated offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The Department of Defense has developed an alternative method
to accurately count domestic violence incidents and resulting
disciplinary actions.
Subtitle F--Decorations and Award
Medals for members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the
Department of Defense who were killed or wounded in an attack
by a foreign terrorist organization (sec. 561)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 1129a to title 10, United States Code, to require that
the Secretary concerned treat attacks by a foreign terrorist
organization as an attack by an international terrorist
organization for the purposes of awarding the Purple Heart in
certain circumstances.
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness
Matters
Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance
program to local educational agencies that are impacted by
enrollment of dependent children of military members and DOD
civilian employees.
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398),
for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local
educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with
severe disabilities.
Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012 (sec. 573)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to extend the program
modifications contained in that section by an additional 3
years.
Authority to employ non-United States citizens as teachers in
Department of Defense Overseas Dependents' School system (sec.
574)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2(2)(A) of the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay
and Personnel Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 901(2)(A)) to authorize
employment of local nationals who are not United States
citizens to teach host nation language courses in the Defense
Dependents' Overseas Education System.
Inclusion of domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools among
functions of Advisory Council on Dependents' Education (sec.
575)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1411 of the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978
(20 U.S.C. 929) to include in the functions of the Advisory
Council on Dependents' Education the responsibility to provide
advice and information on the Department of Defense's domestic
dependent elementary and secondary school system. Currently
this council provides advice and information on the Department
of Defense Education Activity's overseas school system, and
does not provide advice and information on the Department's
domestic dependent schools.
Department of Defense suicide prevention programs for military
dependents (sec. 576)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to direct the service secretaries to
develop and implement a program to track, retain, and analyze
information on deaths that are reported as suicides involving
dependents of members of the regular and reserve components of
each respective military service and to submit a report on the
programs developed to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Enhancement of authority to accept support for Air Force Academy
athletic programs (sec. 581)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 9362 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of the Air Force to: (1) Accept from third parties
funds, supplies, equipment, and services for the support of the
athletic programs of the Air Force Academy (Academy); (2) Enter
into leases or licenses for the purpose of supporting the
athletic programs of the Academy; and (3) Enter into contracts
and cooperative agreements for the purpose of supporting the
athletic programs of the Academy. The provision would also
authorize the corporation established to support the athletic
programs of the Academy to enter into licensing, marketing, and
sponsorship agreements relating to trademarks and service marks
identifying the Academy, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of the Air Force.
Items of Special Interest
Comptroller General of the United States report on the sexual assault
prevention activities of the Department of Defense and the
Armed Forces
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States, not later than February 27, 2015, to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, a report on the sexual assault prevention
activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), containing: (1)
An assessment of the sexual assault prevention strategy of the
DOD; (2) A description and assessment of the actions taken by
each military service to implement the sexual assault
prevention strategy of DOD and of that service; (3) A
comprehensive description of the sexual assault prevention
activities of each military service as of submittal of the
report and of those planned for the 12 months thereafter; (4) A
comprehensive description of the sexual assault prevention
activities at joint installations, and an assessment of the
collaborative efforts of the military services involved, as of
submittal of the report and of those planned for the 12 months
thereafter; (5) A comprehensive assessment of the sexual
assault prevention activities of each military service,
including an assessment of the extent to which any differences
among such activities arise from unique qualities of a
particular service or the efforts of a service, to pursue an
innovative approach to sexual assault prevention; (6) A
description and assessment of the procedures and mechanisms
used by each military service to ensure that the sexual assault
prevention strategy of each service, and the training provided
pursuant to such strategy, are effective in achieving the
intended objectives; (7) An assessment of the report of the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to the President on efforts of the DOD and the Armed
Forces to improve the prevention of and response to sexual
assault in the Armed Forces, as required by the President, to
be submitted not later than December 1, 2014; and (8) Such
other recommendations on the sexual assault prevention
activities of the DOD as the Comptroller General considers
appropriate.
Comptroller General report on access to on-base services by junior
enlisted personnel
According to the Department of Defense, roughly 83 percent
of the active-duty force is comprised of enlisted personnel. Of
these, about 95,000 are in grades below E-5. Service policies
require most junior enlisted personnel below the grade of E-5
to live on post. The committee recognizes the unique military
value of requiring junior enlisted personnel to live on post,
including improved unit cohesion, discipline, professional
development, and esprit de corps. Many of these members, owing
either to service policies, post restrictions, or financial
reality, do not have a means of personal transportation other
than public transportation. Accordingly, these members may be
isolated from commercial amenities and services. The military
services provide a wide array of services and programs on post
to meet the needs of these members and others who choose to
live on post, including dining facilities, health care clinics
and treatment facilities, commissaries and exchanges, legal
assistance, recreation and leisure opportunities, physical
fitness and other morale, welfare, and recreation facilities,
and libraries.
The committee is concerned that some junior enlisted
personnel living on post are experiencing difficulties in
accessing these services due to various factors such as
inconsistent or inadequate hours of operation or lack of
transportation. As a result, some members may be forced to
forego meals or miss medical appointments simply because the
dining facility closed early or transportation was not
available to the health clinic on the other side of post. This
is a leadership issue that the committee expects commanders to
address.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the provision of services provided on military
installations, and the policies and procedures for ensuring
that junior enlisted personnel have ready access to those
benefits. The committee directs the Comptroller General to
provide a report on the results of this review to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by no later than April 1, 2015.
Comptroller General report on feasibility and advisability of longer
tour lengths
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no later than
January 1, 2015, assessing the feasibility and advisability of
lengthening tour rotational goals within each military
department.
The report shall include:
(1) A description of current spending on permanent
change of station (PCS) moves and associated support
costs;
(2) A review of past changes to PCS policy and costs
or savings associated with such changes for each
military service;
(3) A description of the extent to which each service
is meeting existing rotational goals and, if not, the
causes of major shortfalls; and
(4) An assessment of the impact lengthened tour
rotations could have on unit readiness, stability for
servicemembers and their families, career progression,
and potential cost savings in military service budgets.
Comptroller General review of Department of Defense progress in
expanding service opportunities for women
Women have served in the military services for over a half
a century but have been mostly excluded from direct combat
positions. Over time, women have been assigned to select
positions in ground combat units at certain levels or under
certain conditions. Despite these restrictions, women have
served in combat environments while deployed to Iraq and
Afghanistan. During the wars over the past 13 years, more than
800 women have been wounded and more than 130 have died. Many
women have received awards for their performance in combat
environments.
On January 24, 2013, the Secretary of Defense rescinded the
1994 direct ground combat exclusion rule for women, which
opened certain positions and units to women following service
reviews and congressional notification procedures. The
Secretary of Defense directed the military departments to
submit detailed plans by May 15, 2013, for the implementation
of this change and to move ahead expeditiously, with the
process to be completed by January 1, 2016. As a result,
according to the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, since 2012
the military services have opened approximately 57,000
positions to women, and service efforts to validate gender-
neutral occupational performance standards continue.
The committee is concerned about what steps the Department
of Defense (DOD) and the military services are taking to ensure
the effective and successful integration of women into
previously closed positions and units, as well as the
methodology being used to validate occupational standards.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the progress of the services in opening
closed positions and occupations to women, and their progress
in developing and validating gender-neutral occupational
standards. The report should include: (1) The status of service
efforts to open previously closed positions and units to women;
(2) The integrity and effectiveness of the services' evaluation
processes and testing in validating gender-neutral occupational
standards; (3) The extent to which these processes consider the
overall operational capability and combat effectiveness of
units required to meet national defense objectives; (4) The
extent to which the DOD is tracking and monitoring military
service plans to complete the integration of women in direct
combat positions by January 2016; and (5) Any steps DOD or the
services have taken to mitigate potential challenges associated
with integrating women into combat roles. The Comptroller
General shall report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives on the results of this
review by no later than February 1, 2015.
Continuation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
The committee notes that since 2008, more than 1.3 million
National Guard and reserve servicemembers and their families
have benefited from the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
(YRRP). Information and counseling provided during Yellow
Ribbon events help returning guard and reserve members and
their families manage the unique challenges associated with
transitions between military and civilian life. YRRP is
designed to ensure guardsmen and reservists returning home,
often to rural areas or locations far removed from military
installations and traditional military support networks, have
access to similar services as their active-duty counterparts.
The program provides training sessions and information
regarding family assistance programs, veterans' benefits,
resilience and suicide prevention, mental health outreach, and
other medical information, for servicemembers and their
families pre-deployment, during deployment, and up to 90 days
post-deployment. YRRP also supports additional state-outreach
programs that coordinate state and local resources to create a
comprehensive network of support throughout the deployment
cycle. These extended programs are particularly valuable given
that servicemembers may continue to face reintegration
challenges, including symptoms associated with post-traumatic
stress disorder, up to and exceeding 180 days after deployment.
The committee believes the YRRP has enduring value, and
encourages the Department of Defense to continue its support
beyond the current conflict. The committee also directs the
Office for Reintegration Programs Center for Excellence to
evaluate the feasibility and advisability of adding additional
Yellow Ribbon programming 180 days after deployment and
throughout the deployment cycle. The evaluation should include
an assessment of possible means to provide more efficient
delivery of services, to include leveraging the value of State-
based outreach programs.
Cyber career field
The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the Services
to recruit and retain military personnel with the skills and
aptitude for our Nation's cyber mission. However, the committee
is concerned that military personnel in the cyber field have no
clear, defined career path to success. To retain the very best
officers and enlisted members with cyber skills, the Services
need to provide a career track that includes progressive
training, education, and assignments to prepare these
servicemembers for positions of increased responsibility,
including command and leadership positions.
The committee directs the service secretaries to assess
whether the cyber mission warrants new officer and enlisted
specialty designators that are distinct from communications,
signal, and intelligence specialties, and whether recruiting,
retention, and assignment of servicemembers with cyber skills
requires bonuses or special and incentive pays. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to report the results of this
assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives no later than January 31,
2015.
Department of Defense policy and plan for prevention and response to
sexual harassment in the Armed Forces
The committee is disappointed that the Department of
Defense has not complied with section 579 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) that required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, no later than January 2, 2013, a report
setting forth a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to
sexual harassment in the Armed Forces. The committee has not
yet received this report.
This legislative provision also required the Secretary to
develop a plan to collect information and data regarding
substantiated incidents of sexual harassment involving
servicemembers, including the need to identify cases in which a
servicemember is accused of multiple incidents of sexual
harassment. The Secretary was required to submit this plan to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than June 1, 2013. The committee has
not yet received this plan.
The committee is aware that there is a correlation between
sexual harassment and sexual assaults and believes that it is
imperative to address incidents of sexual harassment before the
perpetrator progresses to commit more serious sexual offenses.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than July 31, 2014, on the status of
both of these requirements.
Funding for the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps
The committee recognizes that the United States Naval Sea
Cadet Corps (USNSCC) makes significant contributions in the
development of our Nation's youth, the recruitment efforts of
the United States Navy, and the awareness of the Navy and its
mission. Since its inception in 1958, the USNSCC has trained
over 170,000 young Americans. Today, it continues to prepare
America's youth to become productive and patriotic citizens.
Furthermore, the USNSCC contributes directly to the recruiting
mission of the United States Navy. Over 11 percent of the most
recent class at the United States Naval Academy were former
cadets, and a total of 626 cadets accessed into military
service in 2013.
The USNSCC plays a significant role in both the development
of this Nation's youth and the mission of the United States
Navy. This committee supports its mission and encourages the
Secretary of the Navy to continue funding the USNSCC at current
programmed funding levels, to be augmented with additional
funds, should they become available.
Military chaplains
The committee recognizes the historical and present-day
significance of military chaplains. Since the Nation's
founding, military chaplains have provided spiritual leadership
and guidance to servicemembers. Chaplains have served in every
war in which America has fought, and many have been decorated,
including numerous valor awards, and even the Medal of Honor.
The committee acknowledges that the Chaplaincies of the
Military Departments ``are established 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.'' Further, today's
force comprises a religiously diverse population, and chaplains
serve everyone to the best of their abilities, attending to the
spiritual needs of servicemembers, even in circumstances where
the chaplain's religion differs from the members they serve.
The committee expresses its strong and continuing support
of chaplains and their mission.
Online employment search-tool consolidation
The committee recognizes the importance of Department of
Defense (DOD) investment in Internet-based job search programs
to assist servicemembers who are transitioning from Active Duty
into the civilian workforce. However, the committee is
concerned that efforts to help servicemember transition have
resulted in the creation of duplicative and overlapping online
tools. The committee strongly believes that the Office of the
Secretary of Defense should identify ways to consolidate
multiple existing online transitional tools into a single,
concerted effort.
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 no later than
October 1, 2014, that describes all current and projected DOD-
supported Internet-based transitioning servicemember, reserve
component and veterans job assistance tools, programs, and
processes.
The report should include the cost of sustaining the
current array of Internet-based job assistance tools, programs,
and processes, and the Secretary's recommendations for
standardizing, simplifying, and consolidating such programs. It
is the intent of the committee that DOD maintain an efficient
and effective online employment search-tool while avoiding
duplication and redundancy.
Sexual Assault Bystander Prevention
The committee remains concerned by reports of pervasive
sexual violence within military communities. To that end, the
committee notes that non-governmental collaborations between
practitioners and researchers have identified a growing need
for expanded bystander education in sexual violence prevention
as a means to enhance deterrence, and timely reporting and
adjudication of sexual violence. The committee believes that
the Department of Defense sexual violence prevention programs
should utilize evidence-based methods that evaluate the impact
of bystander prevention curricula on participant attitudes and
behaviors in order to inform and strengthen ongoing prevention
and response activities.
Standardized survivor experience surveys
The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD)
development of standardized survivor experience surveys for
survivors of sexual assault. Survivor responses may provide
valuable insight to ensure that DOD policies and relevant
legislation achieve expected results. The committee encourages
DOD to promote broad survivor participation in the survey
process to include participation by survivors in cases where
sexual assault was alleged in the initial complaint regardless
of whether the sexual assault allegations were disposed of
through a military justice process, civilian criminal process,
or through administrative disposition.
The committee directs DOD to ensure that the annual report
on sexual assault in the military required by section 1602 of
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 (P.L. 111-383) includes an update on DOD's progress
towards developing and implementing such survivor experience
surveys and a report on responses received and associated
lessons learned.
Use and adequacy of military leave for federal employees who are
members of reserve components
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the use and adequacy of annual military leave used under
section 6323 of title 5, United States Code, to meet reserve
component readiness objectives, and to report to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the results of this review by no later than
February 1, 2015. The review shall include: (1) A description
of the average number of hours per fiscal year that Department
of Defense (DOD) employees who are also members of reserve
components spend in any leave status (including leave without
pay) to cover periods of active duty for training or inactive
duty for training; (2) A description of the average number of
hours of military leave used per year by military technicians
(dual status) in the fulfillment of their technician duties;
(3) An assessment of whether the leave provided under section
6323 of title 5, United States Code, is adequate to meet the
needs of employees, including military technicians (dual
status), in light of the operational tempo of the reserve
components; (4) An assessment of whether members of reserve
components should continue to accrue and carry over military
leave under section 6323 of title 5, United States Code, during
periods of active duty or full-time national guard duty for
which they volunteered; and (5) Any other matter relating to
the use of military leave considered appropriate by the
Secretary.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Fiscal year 2015 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
pay raise of 1 percent for all members of the uniformed
services in pay grades O-6 and below effective January 1, 2015.
Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau and Senior Enlisted
Advisor to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau among senior
members of the Armed Forces for the purposes of pay and
allowances (sec. 602)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide pay
parity for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau with the
other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The provision would
also provide pay parity for the senior enlisted advisor to the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau with the senior enlisted
advisors of the Armed Forces. The changes made by this
provision would be prospective to the date of enactment of this
Act.
Modification of computation of basic allowance for housing inside the
United States (sec. 603)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to revise the
method by which the monthly amount of the basic allowance for
housing (BAH) is determined by authorizing the Secretary of
Defense to reduce the monthly amount by up to 5 percent of the
national average for housing for a given pay grade and
dependency status. Servicemembers will not see any reduction in
their BAH until they undergo a permanent change of duty
station.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic
allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 604)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily
increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx
of personnel.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for
reserve forces (sec. 611)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment
bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus,
special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high-
priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons
without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with
prior service, the contracting bonus for cadets and midshipmen
enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, travel
expenses for certain inactive-duty training, and income
replacement for reserve component members experiencing extended
and frequent mobilization for active duty service.
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for
health care professionals (sec. 612)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate
accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and
retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the
accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for
pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in
critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime
specialties.
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear
officers (sec. 613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending period of active service, the
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual
incentive bonus.
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated
special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the
general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and
special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in
health professions. The provision would also extend for 1 year
the authority to pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special
duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and
retention incentives for members qualified in critical military
skills or assigned to high priority units.
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37
bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention
bonus, the assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for
active members, the enlistment bonus, the foreign language
proficiency incentive pay, 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.
Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits
Inapplicability of reduced annual adjustment of retired pay for members
of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 under the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013 who first become members prior to January 1,
2016 (sec. 621)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subparagraph (G) of section 1401a(b)(4) of title 10, United
States Code, to exempt those who first join military service
prior to January 1, 2016, from the reduced cost of living
adjustment (COLA) applicable to military retired pay made by
section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Public Law
113-67), as amended by section 2 of Public Law 113-82. Under
current law, this reduced COLA is inapplicable to members who
first join prior to January 1, 2014.
This change better aligns the impact of the reduced COLA
with Congress's consideration of the report of the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, due
February 2015.
Modification of determination of retired pay base for officers retired
in general and flag officer grades (sec. 622)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1407a of title 10, United States Code, to reinstate the
cap on retired pay of general and flag officers at the monthly
equivalent of level II of the Executive Schedule, as provided
for in section 203(a)(2) of title 37, United States Code. The
provision would ensure the equitable treatment of the service
of general and flag officers serving on or after the date of
enactment of this Act. The retired pay base for final pay
retirees would be the greater of: (1) Their retired pay as
determined by function of the pay tables existing on December
31, 2014, in the officer's grade and years of service as of
that date; or (2) Their retired pay as determined by applicable
law at the time of their retirement (but subject to the cap in
section 203 of title 37, United States Code). The retired pay
base for high-36-month retirees would be based on applicable
law at the time of their retirement, but would continue to
account for uncapped months accumulated between October 1,
2006, and the date of enactment of this Act.
Modification of per-fiscal year calculation of days of certain active
duty or active service to reduce eligibility age for retirement
for non-regular service (sec. 623)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 12731(f)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to
clarify that qualifying days of service under that section to
reduce the age at which a servicemember may receive reserve
retired pay may be accumulated between 2 consecutive fiscal
years, effective after the date of enactment of this Act.
Earlier determination of dependent status with respect to transitional
compensation for dependents of certain members separated for
dependent abuse (sec. 624)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1059 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
the date on which a dependent child's status is determined for
the purposes of transitional compensation under that section,
in the case of a member being administratively separated, is
the date on which the separation action is commenced. This
aligns the dependent status determination with the date on
which transitional compensation payments begin under this
section in these cases.
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established
for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support
(sec. 625)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1448, 1450, and 1455 of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize the payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan annuity
to a special needs trust created under subparagraph (A) or (C)
of section 1396p(d)(4) of title 42, United States Code, for the
sole benefit of a disabled dependent child incapable of self-
support because of mental or physical incapacity.
Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations
Procurement of brand-name and other commercial items for resale by
commissary stores (sec. 631)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2484 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to purchase any commercial item, including
brand-name and generic items, for resale in, at, or by
commissary stores without using full and open competition
procurement procedures.
Items of Special Interest
Department of Defense pay and benefit proposals
The Department of Defense (DOD) proposes several measures
intended to slow the growth of personnel costs within the DOD
budget. These proposals include:
(1) A 1.0 percent pay raise for most military
personnel, lower than the 1.8 percent that would take
effect under current law;
(2) Limiting increases in the housing allowance below
the rate of inflation, such that servicemembers will
eventually pay 5 percent of housing costs out of
pocket, as measured by average national rental costs
for a given pay grade and dependency status;
(3) A phased reduction by $1.0 billion of the annual
direct subsidy provided to military commissaries,
starting with $200.0 million in fiscal year 2015, down
from the current annual subsidy of $1.4 billion, a
change that could significantly impact commissary
savings that servicemembers and their families depend
on;
(4) A restructuring and consolidation of the TRICARE
Prime, Standard, and Extra programs into a single
TRICARE plan;
(5) Establishment of enrollment fees for TRICARE for
Life beneficiaries; and
(6) Increased pharmacy co-pays for prescriptions
filled outside of military treatment facilities.
The committee reluctantly supports DOD's proposals
concerning the pay raise, the basic allowance for housing
(BAH), and pharmacy co-pays. The committee does not support the
proposals affecting the commissary benefit, TRICARE for Life,
or the TRICARE reorganization. The committee views these latter
proposals as structural in nature; as such, they are better
left for consideration until after the Military Compensation
and Retirement Modernization Commission submits its report in
February 2015. The pay raise, BAH, and pharmacy proposals,
while undesirable, are necessary to produce a DOD budget that
provides sufficient funding to address readiness and
modernization deficits, authorizes a sufficiently sized and
trained force to meet national defense objectives, and adheres
to congressionally-mandated budget levels.
Department of Defense proposal to modify commissary benefit
Commissaries have a major positive impact on the quality of
life of all servicemembers--active, reserve, and retired--and
their families. Commissaries, on average, afford savings of
more than 30 percent on items purchased. Additionally,
commissary patrons frequently use base exchanges when they come
on post to shop at the commissary. Increased usage of the base
exchanges results in additional dividends that are returned to
the military community for morale, welfare, and recreation
activities. The cumulative effect of all of these benefits from
commissary patronage is particularly important to junior
enlisted servicemembers.
The committee is concerned that consequences of the
Department of Defense proposal to increase costs to patrons of
the commissary benefit in order to reduce appropriated fund
support for the Defense Commissary Agency have not been fully
evaluated, and that other business models that may not have the
same detrimental impact were not considered.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission and to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than December 1, 2014, that describes: (1) How changes to
the financial structure and funding of commissaries would
impact the purchasing power of military families, especially
young enlisted members and their families; (2) The impact on
commissary sales volumes if prices for groceries and other
goods rise significantly under a new financial and funding
structure; (3) The collateral impact of the Department's
proposal on sales volumes in the military exchange system; (4)
The impact of lower sales volumes in military exchanges on
monetary dividends provided to support the morale, welfare, and
recreation programs of the military services; (5) An assessment
of adoption by the commissary system of a business model
similar to that of the military exchange system; and (6) Other
options for consolidation of commissary and exchange system
functions. The committee expects the Commission to consider
this report as it addresses the commissary benefit in the
report that it submits to Congress and to the President.
Secretary of Defense review of pay table
The committee recognizes the service of those who choose to
serve beyond 30 years in the military. Many of these
servicemembers, the most experienced in the ranks, forego the
opportunity of a second career in order to continue serving
their nation. As a way to incentivize and reward such service,
especially among senior enlisted and officers with prior
enlisted service, Congress extended the pay tables to 40 years
in section 601 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). As
the military draws down, however, and fewer servicemembers
serve beyond 30 years, the committee believes it is time to
reevaluate the usefulness of the 40-year pay table, and whether
it is necessary to continue to achieve certain retention goals.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the utility of the pay tables currently in law with respect to
retaining experienced military personnel who would otherwise be
difficult to retain, and whether such pay tables are necessary
or if retention of such personnel would be equally achievable
under a 30-year pay table, and to submit a report on this
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives by no later than February 1, 2015.
The report shall include a description of how many personnel
remained on Active Duty past 30 years of service, annually,
since 2007; a breakdown by pay grade of such personnel; and the
additional costs to the Department of Defense (DOD) since 2007
of operating under the 40-year pay table rather than a 30-year
pay table (adjusted for inflation). The report shall include
the Secretary's recommendation whether to retain the 40-year
pay table, the reasons why, and an assessment of how DOD
believes longevity pay increases beyond 30 years impacts
retention in the armed services.
Survey of preferences of members of the Armed Forces regarding military
pay and benefits
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has not adequately considered the views and preferences of
servicemembers in making proposals designed to slow the growth
of personnel costs, and that other proposals may yield similar
savings with less impact on those benefits servicemembers value
the most.
The committee strongly encourages the Military Compensation
and Retirement Modernization Commission to conduct a survey of
active-duty servicemembers, reserve component members, and
retirees on their preferences with respect to pay, allowances,
health care, retirement, and quality-of-life benefits; how
those benefits effect decisions to join or remain in the
military; how they differ by grade, dependency status, and duty
location; and to consider the results of this survey in the
Commission's report due next February.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program
Annual mental health assessments for members of the Armed Forces (sec.
701)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide a person-to-person mental
health assessment for active duty and selected reserve members
each year. The Secretary may provide such assessments in
conjunction with annual periodic health assessments or pre- or
post-deployment health assessments. In addition, the provision
would require the Secretary to submit an annual report on the
tools and processes used to provide the assessments.
Modifications of cost-sharing and other requirements for the TRICARE
Pharmacy Benefits Program (sec. 702)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, to modify the
TRICARE pharmacy benefits program by specifying that non-
formulary prescriptions would be available through the national
mail-order pharmacy program, establishing prescription
copayments from 2015 through 2024, and requiring that non-
generic prescription maintenance medications must be refilled
through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national
mail-order pharmacy program.
Parity in provision of inpatient mental health services with other
inpatient medical services (sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1079 of title 10, United States Code, to remove limits
on inpatient mental health services, removing a potential
barrier to receipt of mental health care that does not exist
for other medical and surgical care.
Availability of breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling under
the TRICARE program (sec. 704)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1079 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling during
pregnancy and the postpartum period as a covered benefit for
TRICARE beneficiaries.
Authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for emerging health care
products and services (sec. 705)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1073 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to provide provisional coverage or
authorization for coverage for certain health care products and
services that do not meet the hierarchy of reliable evidence as
prescribed in federal regulations for the TRICARE program. This
would authorize TRICARE coverage for a drug, device, medical
treatment, or procedure considered unproven if the drug or
device cannot be lawfully marketed without Food and Drug
Administration clearance or approval, that are commonly
utilized in medical practice, and are, in many cases,
considered standards of practice by medical practitioners.
Report on status of reductions in TRICARE Prime service areas (sec.
706)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the status of the reduction of TRICARE Prime services areas
conducted by the Department of Defense.
Repeal of requirement for ongoing Comptroller General of the United
States reviews of viability of TRICARE Standard and TRICARE
Extra (sec. 707)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
requirement for ongoing Comptroller General review of the
processes, procedures, and analysis used by the Department of
Defense to determine health care and mental health care
provider acceptance of the TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra
benefit.
The committee notes that the Comptroller General has
already issued five reports under this mandate, and additional
reviews and reports are unlikely to develop significantly new
findings and recommendations for improvement.
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration
Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
matters (sec. 721)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1111, 1113, 1115, and 1116 of title 10, United States
Code, to modify the method by which the Federal Government
makes accrual payments into the Department of Defense Medicare-
Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (Fund). The provision would
require the Secretary of Defense and other administering
secretaries of the uniformed services to make payments into the
Fund at the end of each month on the basis of an actuarial
determination of the single level dollar cost per uniformed
member multiplied by that uniformed services' total monthly end
strength. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of
Defense to change the actuarial determination required by
section 1115 of title 10, United States Code, after the start
of the fiscal year in the event Congress enacts significant
changes in benefits after the fiscal year begins. This would
allow the Secretary to modify the monthly payments into the
Fund during that fiscal year to account for the change in law,
and to realize attendant discretionary savings earlier. The
provision would become effective immediately and would apply to
payments into the Fund beginning in fiscal year 2016.
Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 722)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1704(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to extend the termination
date of the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund from September 30,
2015, to September 30, 2016. Extension of this fund will allow
the departments to fully assess the Captain James A. Lovell
Federal Health Care Center demonstration project, develop and
submit a final report, and give Congress time to consider and
assess the effectiveness of the demonstration project.
Department of Defense-wide strategy for contracting for health care
professionals for the Department of Defense (sec. 723)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a Department of Defense (DOD)-
wide strategy for contracting for health care professionals for
the DOD.
Program on medication management in the Department of Defense (sec.
724)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a program of comprehensive,
uniform medication management in military medical treatment
facilities and to submit a report describing this program to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Report on military family planning programs of the Department of
Defense (sec. 731)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study of the
access of servicemembers and certain military dependents to
methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, contraception counseling, and related
education, and to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives a report of the
findings of this study no later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Interagency working group on the provision of mental health services to
members of the National Guard and the Reserves (sec. 732)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to convene an interagency working group to
review and recommend collaborative approaches to improving the
provision of mental health services to members of the National
Guard and Reserves and to submit a report on the findings and
recommendations of the interagency working group to the
appropriate congressional committees not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Report on improvements in the identification and treatment of mental
health conditions and traumatic brain injury among members of
the Armed Forces (sec. 733)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, a
report evaluating the tools, processes, and best practices to
improve the identification and treatment of mental health
conditions and traumatic brain injury among members of the
Armed Forces.
Report on implementation of recommendations of Institute of Medicine on
improvements to certain resilience and prevention programs of
the Department of Defense (sec. 734)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a
report setting forth an assessment of the feasibility and
advisability of implementing the recommendations of the
Institute of Medicine regarding improvements to programs of the
Department of Defense intended to strengthen mental, emotional,
and behavioral abilities associated with managing adversity,
adapting to change, recovering, and learning in connection with
service in the military.
Report on Department of Defense support of members of the Armed Forces
who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations
required by the Department (sec. 735)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the secretaries of
the military departments, to report on the adequacy and
effectiveness of the policies, procedures, and systems of the
Department of Defense in providing support to servicemembers
who experience traumatic injury as a result of a vaccination
required by the Department of Defense.
Comptroller General of the United States report on Military Health
System Modernization Study of the Department of Defense (sec.
736)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report
assessing the Military Health System Modernization Study of the
Department of Defense to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Autism spectrum disorder services
The committee is aware that researchers are making progress
in diagnosing autism in infants and young children years before
what was previously thought possible. It is recognized that
with early intervention, a child may make significant
progress--potentially increasing language and social skills as
well as circumventing the development of problematic behaviors.
In keeping with trends in ongoing research, the committee
encourages the Department of Defense to assist military
families with autistic children to make sure they can receive
the full and expanding range of early evidence-based risk
assessments and diagnostics, early interventions, and
appropriate treatment approaches. In addition, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that sufficient
priority is given to efforts to provide timely services for
autistic children of military families living in rural or
underserved communities.
Behavioral health treatment of developmental disabilities under TRICARE
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to either:
(1) Include in the defense budget for fiscal year 2016 the
funding required to provide health care, including behavioral
health treatment and applied behavior analysis when prescribed
by a physician or psychologist, under section 1077 of title 10,
United States Code, for treatment of developmental disabilities
(as defined by section 102(8) of the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
15002(8))), including autism spectrum disorder; or (2) Submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives explaining why such funding is not
included in the budget for fiscal year 2016.
The health care described above should be provided by
licensed or board-certified professionals. However, applied
behavioral analysis or other behavioral health treatment may be
provided by authorized employees, contractors, or trainees
under the supervision of the licensed or board-certified
professionals when the employee, contractor, or trainee meets
minimum qualifications, training, or supervision requirements
established by State law, an accredited national certification
board, or by the Secretary.
Consolidated TRICARE health plan
The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's
proposal to consolidate the current TRICARE Prime, Standard,
and Extra health plans into a single, consolidated plan
designed to improve the benefit for authorized beneficiaries.
However, the committee is concerned that this proposal would
make significant structural changes to TRICARE that may be
premature in light of the upcoming report of the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
established by Congress in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). This Commission
is required to submit its report no later than February 2015.
The committee is aware that this Commission is considering
potential changes to the TRICARE benefit as part of its
charter.
The committee remains committed to a military health care
system that provides high quality, cost-effective health care
to servicemembers, military retirees, and military dependents,
and looks forward to the Commission's recommendations to
maintain and improve the TRICARE health care benefit.
Department of Defense collaboration with the Department of Veterans
Affairs on the disability claims processing backlog
The committee recognizes the vitally important ongoing
collaboration between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as they seek resolution on
the over half a million pending disability claims, of which
more than 50 percent are over 125 days old. Therefore, the
committee encourages further coordination between the
departments, specifically through: ongoing assignment of DOD
subject matter experts to the Veterans Benefits Administration
to review the disability claims backlog and identify cases
where DOD involvement can assist the VA in processing claims;
timely implementation of an interoperable electronic health
record with integrated display of data or a single electronic
health record; and the deployment of the Health Artifact and
Image Management Solution. Additionally, the committee urges
the DOD/VA Health Executive Committee to ensure expanded access
to the Janus Joint Legacy Viewer to VA regional offices in all
Veterans Integrated Service Networks regions and major DOD
medical facilities in order to provide more efficient health
care services to all veterans.
Prosthetics for servicemembers
The committee believes that injured servicemembers should
have access to the best and most clinically appropriate
prosthetics available. The committee notes that section 724 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) directed the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly submit a report to the
appropriate congressional committees on plans to ensure that
the most clinically appropriate prosthetics and orthotics are
made available to injured servicemembers and veterans using
technological advances as appropriate. The committee looks
forward to reviewing that report, which is due on June 24,
2014.
As part of the existing reporting requirements associated
with section 724, the committee also directs the Secretary of
Defense to include in the report the following elements:
(1) A description of the quality and capability of
prosthetics currently available to servicemembers, and
an assessment of how the quality and capability of
those prosthetics compare to the best prosthetics
currently available in the commercial market;
(2) A description of prosthetics that have been
developed with the support of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, and an assessment of how
those prosthetics compare to those currently available
to servicemembers;
(3) An assessment of whether any gaps exist between
the prosthetics currently provided to servicemembers
and what is available in the commercial market; and
(4) If any such gaps exist, a description of the
steps the Secretary of Defense plans to take in order
to eliminate those gaps.
Treatment for obesity
The committee believes that maintaining a healthy weight
supports overall health by reducing weight-related chronic
disease risks. By encouraging TRICARE beneficiaries to maintain
a healthy weight, the Department of Defense (DOD) can limit the
direct and indirect medical costs associated with obesity. The
committee notes that section 1079(a)(11) of title 10, United
States Code, states that treatment of obesity may not be
provided if obesity is the sole or major condition treated. The
committee understands that DOD interprets this subsection to
prohibit coverage for any treatment for obesity other than
bariatric surgery, including FDA-approved drugs, even in cases
where co-morbid conditions exist. The committee encourages DOD
to broaden its interpretation to include coverage for
clinically appropriate treatments for obesity where other major
underlying medical conditions exist.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management
Open systems approach to acquisition of systems containing information
technology (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to adopt an open systems approach
to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) and Major
Automated Information Systems (MAIS), and to other programs the
primary purpose of which is the acquisition of an information
technology (IT) system, entering the acquisition process after
January 1, 2016. The committee believes that a comprehensive
open systems approach is an important component of IT
acquisition reform.
The provision would provide exceptions to this requirement
for the procurement of commercial end-items and systems, and
for so-called Quick Reaction Capabilities acquired or developed
in response to Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statements or
Joint Emergent Operational Needs Statements. The provision also
would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) to identify all the
legacy systems as of January 1, 2016, that were or are MDAP or
MAIS that are not open systems, develop a process, including
business case analyses, for ranking the priority of such legacy
systems for migration to open systems, and develop a plan to
migrate the top half of that prioritized list to open systems
within 10 years of the date of enactment.
To support this open systems approach to IT acquisition
reform, the provision requires the Secretary to: (1) Identify
the distinct computing environments and mission domains in DOD;
(2) Form or use existing voluntary and consensus based
standards bodies to create technical reference architectures
(TRA) and domain-specific services (DSS) for those computing
and mission domains; and (3) Ensure that the DOD components are
using the same TRA and DSS to avoid duplication, competing
approaches, and lack of interoperability.
The provision defines an open system approach as an
integrated technical and business strategy that: (1) Employs a
modular design and uses widely supported and consensus-based
standards for interfaces between layers, segments, services,
and applications; (2) Is subjected to verification testing to
prove the openness of its interfaces; and (3) Allows components
to be added, modified, replaced, removed, and supported by
different vendors over the life-cycle of the system, enabling
competition and innovation. By computing environments, the
committee means the computing infrastructure that support
missions and functions, ranging from embedded, real-time,
safety-critical systems, to mobile computing, to large-scale
enterprise or cloud-based environments.
Traditional, closed system acquisitions typically result in
vendor lock for the life of the system because the design is
tightly integrated between system components and between
software and hardware, and software and interfaces are
proprietary and unique. In such systems, it is very difficult
and expensive to modify any component because of the tight
coupling; and hardware and software coupling inhibits insertion
of new commodity hardware.
In open systems, new hardware can be easily inserted,
software can be extensively reused from one project to another,
services are common and reused, new capabilities, services, and
applications can be quickly developed and inexpensively
integrated, and modifications and upgrades can be incrementally
executed with low risk. Software is separated or abstracted
from hardware, allowing substitution of new hardware or the
application of software from one system to another.
The committee has over a period of years encouraged DOD,
including through legislation, to develop meaningful IT
acquisition reform strategies in recognition of the differences
between the IT industry and non-IT hardware development
processes. The committee has been disappointed by the
inconsistent nature of the DOD's response.
In a few key areas, such as Navy sonars and submarine ship
systems, DOD has shown that open systems architecture designs
can yield significant benefits.
The Navy is now applying open systems approaches to a large
number of programs, both large and small. The Air Force is
using this design approach for unmanned aircraft avionics and
ground control stations through the Rapid Capabilities Office,
and to migrate to an open system on the F-22 and the
Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). The Navy and Army
jointly are building an open systems architecture approach for
aviation systems through the Future Airborne Capability
Environment. The Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Task Force in USD
(AT&L) is applying an open systems approach to the UAS Control
Segment initiative. The Army's Intelligence and Security
Command is designing the next-generation version of DCGS to be
an open system. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence has for several years been constructing an
open systems architecture for the entire Defense Intelligence
Information Enterprise.
Nonetheless, DOD's approach to open systems remains spotty
and inconsistent, and very few open systems have actually been
built.
Accordingly, the committee concludes that DOD would benefit
from a policy which establishes a presumption in favor of open
systems architectures and requires program managers to focus on
this issue early in the acquisition cycle.
Recharacterization of changes to Major Automated Information System
programs (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
requirements applicable to a Major Automated Information System
program that fails to achieve a full deployment decision within
5 years after the Milestone A decision or selection of the
preferred alternative for the program.
In lieu of a critical change report, failure to achieve a
full deployment decision within 5 years would be determined to
be a significant change with the attendant notification to the
congressional defense committees required for all significant
changes.
Process map requirement for milestone approval of defense business
system programs (sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
business process reengineering before milestone decisions for
Major Automated Information System programs.
Governance of Joint Information Environment (sec. 804)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to install a stronger management element
and set of controls on the Joint Information Environment (JIE)
initiative. Department of Defense (DOD) officials describe JIE
as the most significant and far-reaching transformation of the
Department's information networks ever attempted, and yet the
Department is not managing the effort as an acquisition
program. The committee is prepared to accept, for the time
being, the Department's arguments for not designating JIE
formally as an acquisition program. However, the committee is
not satisfied with the level of rigor in DOD's planning and
oversight of this initiative. In addition, the committee is
concerned that the management elements in existence for JIE are
imbalanced, with insufficient representation of those who must
execute warfighting missions through the JIE networks and those
who must operate and defend those networks against cyber
attacks.
To address these concerns, the provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to assign a senior military or civilian
official to serve as an assistant to the Chief Information
Officer (CIO) as the JIE Coordinator. The JIE Coordinator shall
have expertise in information technology planning and program
management, command and control at the Joint Force level, and
U.S. Cyber Command's (CYBERCOM) concept of operation for
operating and defending DOD information systems and networks.
The provision would require that the CIO assign to the JIE
Coordinator responsibility for balancing the priorities and
risks between efficient network acquisition and operation,
effective execution of military missions, and effective network
defense. The JIE Coordinator would also:
(1) Define the features of the existing network
architecture that are critical for the transition to
the objective JIE architecture (the as is condition);
(2) Develop the desired architecture for JIE (the to
be state);
(3) Develop and update an integrated master schedule
for the migration from the as is to the to be JIE;
(4) With the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation, develop and update cost estimates and
performance measures for the migration to JIE;
(5) Track conformance and deviation from schedules,
costs, and performance metrics;
(6) Identify gaps in the budgets and plans of the DOD
components that collectively make up the resources for
the JIE to determine requirements for development or
procurement actions to address those gaps; and
(7) Oversee the development of open system
architectures for the joint warfighting missions of the
Department to complement the Defense Intelligence
Information Enterprise open architecture for JIE being
developed under the direction of the JIE Executive
Committee (EXCOM) by the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence for the intelligence
mission of the Department.
The provision would require the CIO, the commanders of the
combatant commands, and the heads of the cyber components of
the military services to assist the Coordinator by making
available to the Coordinator experts from across the Department
with experience in joint planning and operations at a combatant
command, serving in the Office of the CIO or an office of the
CIO of a military service, and on the staff of CYBERCOM or the
cyber component of a military service. In addition, the team
would include experts in information technology and cloud
computing acquisition.
The JIE EXCOM currently is tri-chaired by the DOD CIO, the
Joint Staff J6, and the Commander of CYBERCOM. The provision
would require the addition of the J3s from the Joint Staff and
CYBERCOM, and the addition of representatives from the
operational communities on the working groups staffing the JIE
EXCOM to ensure representation of warfighter interests and
perspectives.
The provision would require the CIO to select from among
competing open source candidates a standard language for
representing cyber threat information, such as the Structured
Threat Information Expression (STIX), Open Indicators of
Compromise (Open IOC), Cyber Observable Expression (CYBOX), and
Trusted Automated Exchange of Indicator Information (TAXII).
Finally, the provision would require the CIO to identify
and prioritize the applications in use in the Department that
the CIO assesses are candidates for migration to a cloud
computing environment, and to determine which applications can
and cannot, without modification or replacement, be shifted to
a cloud computing environment, along with a time-phased plan to
either modify or replace those applications that are not cloud-
compatible. The committee notes that a significant percentage
of DOD computing applications cannot be virtualized or
otherwise are not cloud-compatible, and that the cost and time
required to modify such applications are substantial. Without
an understanding of what applications can be readily migrated,
and a plan to modify or replace those that cannot, neither the
Department nor potential commercial cloud providers will be
able to plan effectively.
Report on implementation of acquisition process for information
technology systems (sec. 805)
In the last several decades, the commercial marketplace has
developed a process of rapid innovation and technology refresh
for information technologies that the Department of Defense
(DOD) has tried to leverage but often failed due to a
cumbersome acquisition process.
In response, DOD has received new authorities from Congress
and developed on its own significant policies and guidance for
the development, acquisition, and integration of information
technologies.
Legislation that supports a new approach includes, but is
not limited to:
(1) The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
(P.L. 103-355), which encouraged executive agencies to
seek and acquire commercial items or nondevelopmental
items other than commercial items to address
requirements;
(2) The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-106;
formerly the Information Technology Management Reform
Act of 1996), which instituted a number of changes to
acquisition practices emphasizing performance- and
results-based management to enforce accountability for
information resources; authorized the Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy to conduct a pilot program
to test alternative approaches for information
technology acquisition by executive agencies; and
directed the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that
information technology acquisition processes were
simple, clear, and understandable and that such
processes addressed risk management, incremental
acquisitions, and timely incorporation of commercial
information technology; and
(3) Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84), which directed
the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a new
acquisition process for information technology systems.
The process was to take a modular, open-systems
approach and include early and continual involvement of
the user, multiple, rapidly executed increments or
releases of capability, and early, successive
prototyping to support an evolutionary approach.
The committee notes that the Department has issued guidance
and policies to support and implement these authorities
including, but not limited to:
(1) The interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, on Operation
of the Defense Acquisition System (dated November 25,
2013). This instruction specifically highlights the
importance of compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (P.L. 104-106); and
(2) The Department's ongoing Better Buying Power
initiative, which since 2010 has focused on providing
greater efficiencies toward an affordable, value-added
military capability to the warfighter. Among other
areas, this initiative has concentrated on
affordability, cost control throughout the product
lifecycle, and incentivized productivity and
innovation.
From the nonexhaustive list of laws, policies, and guidance
listed above, it is clear that both the legislative and the
executive branches have recognized the benefits of agile,
incremental acquisition of information technology.
However, from the record of successful Major Automated
Information Systems, it is less clear that the DOD has realized
the benefits from these laws, policies, and guidance. The
committee notes approvingly that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) has
initiated a review of information technology acquisition policy
as part of his broader effort to reform and streamline defense
acquisition.
As part of that process, the committee recommends a
provision that requires the USD (AT&L) to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by July 31, 2014 on the
implementation of the acquisition process for information
technology detailing the applicable implementing regulations,
instructions, or policies. The report shall also explain any
legislative criteria not yet implemented and a schedule for
implementing such criteria along with any proposed deviations.
Revision of requirement for acquisition programs to maintain defense
research facility records (sec. 806)
The committee recommends a provision that would revise the
requirement for Department of Defense programs to maintain
defense research facility records, as established by section
2364 of title 10, United States Code.
Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for United States Special
Operations Command (sec. 807)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
procedures for the rapid acquisition and deployment of items
for the United States Special Operations Command that are
currently under development by the Department of Defense or
available from the commercial sector and are urgently needed to
avoid significant risk of loss of life or mission failure, or
needed to avoid collateral damage where no collateral damage is
necessary for mission success.
Consideration of corrosion control in preliminary design review (sec.
808)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics to ensure that Department of Defense Instruction
5000.02 and other applicable guidance require full
consideration during preliminary design review of metals,
materials, and technologies that effectively prevent or control
corrosion over the life cycle of the product.
Repeal of extension of Comptroller General report on inventory (sec.
809)
The committee recommends a provision that would sunset the
reporting requirements of section 803(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84).
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to multiyear
defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec.
821)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify and
reorganize the reporting and certification requirements of the
Department of Defense when requesting specific authorization
for multiyear contract authority.
Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, requires the
Secretary of Defense, in the case of a contract equal to or
greater than $500.0 million, to certify that certain
requirements will be met by the proposed contract no later than
March 1st of the year in which the legislative authority to
enter into such contract is requested. The Secretary must send
a notification of the findings regarding the same requirements
30 days before award of the contract.
The committee finds value in both the certification and the
notification, but believes that the timing is reversed. The
recommended provision would reorganize the timeline so the
Secretary provides the initial findings of the enumerated
requirements when requesting multiyear contract authority and
then certifies the completed findings prior to contract award.
The committee believes this will provide more reasonable
and complete information.
Extension and modification of contract authority for advanced component
development and prototype units and modification of authority
(sec. 822)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend a
pilot program that provides a bridge between the science and
technology (S&T) portion of a contract awarded under the
Federal Acquisition Regulation's Broad Agency Announcement
(BAA) authority, and the award of a contract under a new
acquisition for advanced component development or prototyping.
The provision also expands the authority, to include a bridge
to the production of technologies resulting from the successful
research and development programs.
The committee believes that by allowing the BAA-based
contract to include a contract line item or an option for
potential work that bridges the gap between S&T and advanced
component development or procurement, contracts can be issued
on BAAs that carry the most promising work through to
integrated component evaluation, demonstration, validation, and
production without having to restart the acquisition process.
It is the committee's expectations that extending the
authority under this section will speed the transition of S&T
into fielded systems pursuant to the goals of Department of
Defense Instruction 5000.2, ``Operation of the Defense
Acquisition System''.
Conditional temporary extension of comprehensive subcontracting plans
(sec. 823)
The committee recommends a provision that extends the
comprehensive subcontracting plan test program to September 30,
2015, if the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions,
Technology and Logistics cannot transition all active
participants to individual small business subcontracting plans
that meet all relevant requirements contained in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation before December 31, 2014.
Participants transitioned shall also enhance subcontracting
opportunities for small business concerns.
Sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit electronic parts
(sec. 824)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit
electronic parts.
Authority for Defense Contract Audit Agency to interview contractor
employees in connection with examination of contractor records
(sec. 825)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (a)(1) of section 2313 of title 10, United States
Code, to grant the Defense Contract Audit Agency specific
authority to interview contractor employees similar to the
authority granted to the Comptroller General in subsection
(c)(1) of that same section.
Enhancement of whistleblower protection for employees of grantees (sec.
826)
The committee recommends a provision that would enhance the
whistleblower protections for employees of grantees.
Prohibition on reimbursement of contractors for congressional
investigations and inquiries (sec. 827)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
reimbursement of costs incurred by a contractor in connection
with a congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue
that is the subject matter of a proceeding resulting in a
disposition.
Enhanced authority to acquire certain products and services produced in
Africa (sec. 828)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
Department of Defense missions in the United States Africa
Command (AFRICOM) area of responsibility (AOR) with a limited
procurement authority giving a preference to products and
services produced in the AFRICOM AOR.
Requirement to provide photovoltaic devices from United States sources
(sec. 829)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
additional acquisition opportunities for the Department of
Defense with respect to photovoltaic devices.
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs
Program manager development strategy (sec. 841)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive strategy for
enhancing the role of Department of Defense program managers in
developing and carrying out defense acquisition programs.
Tenure and accountability of program managers for program development
periods (sec. 842)
The committee recommends a provision that requires the
Secretary of Defense to revise Department of Defense guidance
for defense acquisition programs to address the tenure and
accountability of program managers for the program development
period of defense acquisition programs.
Tenure and accountability of program managers for program execution
periods (sec. 843)
The committee recommends a provision that would address the
tenure and accountability of program managers for the program
execution period.
The provision would require each such program manager to
enter into a performance agreement with the milestone decision
authority (MDA) that establishes the expected parameters of
performance, including the commitment of the MDA that adequate
funding and resources are available and will be provided, and
assurance of the program manager that the parameters are
achievable.
The provision would also require that program managers be
given authority comparable to the authority given to private
sector program managers and that they be assigned to a program
until the delivery of the first production units, with a narrow
waiver authority.
Removal of requirements related to waiver of preliminary design review
and post-preliminary design review before Milestone B (sec.
844)
The committee recommends a provision that would add an
alternative to one of the certification requirements
established by section 2366b of title 10, United States Code,
for major defense acquisition programs entering the acquisition
system at Milestone B.
Comptroller General of the United States report on operational testing
programs for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 845)
The committee notes the valuable role that the Director of
Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) plays in providing
oversight and independent reviews to Congress to ensure weapon
systems are suitable and effective in combat.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees on the extent, if any, to
which major weapon systems have been required to conduct
operational testing in excess of levels necessary to
demonstrate compliance with program requirements validated by
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and effectiveness and
suitability for combat, as required by section 2399 of title
10, United States Code.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Extension to United States Transportation Command of authorities
relating to prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec.
861)
The committee recommends a provision that would include
United States Transportation Command in the expanded
authorities granted by section 831 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-066).
Reimbursement of Department of Defense for assistance provided to
nongovernmental entertainment-oriented media producers (sec.
862)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the reimbursement to the Department of Defense for assistance
provided to nongovernmental entertainment-oriented media
producers.
Three-year extension of authority for Joint Urgent Operational Needs
Fund (sec. 863)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 3
years the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund, which is
available to the Secretary of Defense for providing equipment,
supplies, services, training, and facilities to resolve urgent
operational needs.
Items of Special Interest
Army Financial Management Optimization Initiative
The General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) is the
Army's web-based enterprise resource planning (ERP) solution.
GFEBS leverages commercial off-the-shelf business enterprise
software (SAP) to enable the Army to compile and share
accurate, up-to-date financial and accounting data across the
entire active Army, Army Reserves, and Army National Guard.
GFEBS replaces or absorbs more than 80 legacy accounting and
asset management systems to standardize business processes and
transactional input across the Army.
Seeking to optimize GFEBS utilization, the Secretary of the
Army signed a memorandum on September 11, 2012, directing the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Comptroller (ASA(FM&C)) to conduct a doctrine, organization,
training, material, leadership, personnel, facilities (DOTMLPF)
review of all financial management processes, policies,
organization, and workforce composition.
This review, known as the Army Financial Management
Optimization (AFMO) initiative is intended to examine and
ultimately adjust the roles, missions, and functions of Army
financial management (FM) units to optimize the capabilities of
the Army's enterprise-wide FM system, maximize efficiency,
eliminate or mitigate capability gaps, and meet DOD-wide
auditability requirements. The AFMO Task Force made numerous
recommendations, including a plan to ``consolidate selected
financial management activities'' into ``Command-Aligned Hubs''
(CAH). A pilot program to test this CAH approach will begin
October 1, 2014.
The committee applauds the Army's efforts. But as the Army
works to reduce costs and achieve auditable financial
statements, it is important that the evaluation of the CAH
pilot program be analyzed not just from an Army perspective but
also from a DOD-wide perspective.
The committee therefore directs the Deputy Chief Management
Officer to conduct a review of the CAH pilot program for any
DOD-wide impacts and report findings of the review to the
congressional defense committees within 120 days of completion
of the pilot program.
Business systems modernization
The Department of Defense (DOD) business systems
environment supports critical functions such as human resources
management, logistics, and acquisition that directly impact the
lives of our fighting men and women.
Nevertheless, this environment, which includes over 2,000
systems, is overly complex and error-prone, and is
characterized by little standardization, multiple systems that
perform the same tasks, the same data being stored in multiple
systems, and the need for data to be entered manually into
multiple systems. The President's budget requests over $6.0
billion in fiscal year 2015 funds to support its business
systems.
10 U.S. Code 2222 requires all business systems to comply
with the DOD Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) and
complete sufficient Business Process Reengineering before the
systems can be certified and approved to obligate available
funds.
However, the ability to meet the intent of this statute is
limited by the quality and utility of DOD's BEA and business
process reengineering efforts. Without a meaningful
architecture and effective means for conducting business
process reengineering assessments, DOD will not be able to
cost-effectively achieve its business systems modernization
goals in a timely manner.
Accordingly, the committee requests the Government
Accountability Office to report on (1) How useful the current
BEA is in guiding and constraining DOD's business
transformation initiatives and whether more cost-effective
alternative approaches exist to meet DOD's needs; and (2)
Evaluate the effectiveness of DOD's approach to conducting
business process reengineering assessments.
The report should consider including business system
investments covering a range of sizes (costs) and risk levels,
among other selection factors, as part of its study. The
committee directs the Comptroller General to issue this report
by February 1, 2015.
Clarification on the use of energy savings performance contracts
The committee notes that section 8287 of title 42, United
States Code, provides authority for energy savings performance
contracts (ESPC). The committee believes that ESPC are a tool
that has proven effective in reducing both cost and energy use
by leveraging third-party private financing.
The committee has attempted to clarify when it is
appropriate to use such contracts in both section 828 of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383) and section 2825 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239).
While ESPC are not available for constructing new buildings
or facilities, the committee notes that in some cases, the
installation of equipment meeting the standard of section 8287
requires the modification or repair of existing facilities, or
the construction of facilities or infrastructure that provide
necessary support to the primary function of the operating
equipment. In such cases, ESPC may be used.
The committee applauds the Army for their aggressive use of
ESPC. According to testimony by the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment on April 2,
2014, ``The Army has the most robust ESPC program in the
Federal Government. The ESPC program has more than 180 Task
Orders at over 75 installations, representing $1.32 billion in
private sector investment. . . . We have additional ESPC
projects in development, totaling over $400.0 million in
private investment.''
The committee understands that the Army's use of ESPC has
resulted in energy savings of almost 9 percent of their fiscal
year 2013 facilities energy consumption and an annual utility
cost avoidance of more than $168.0 million.
The committee notes that while the Navy and the Air Force
have also made use of ESPC, they have done so on a much smaller
scale. The committee urges the Navy and the Air Force to adopt
the Army's best practices wherever possible to similarly
increase their use of ESPC.
Comptroller General of the United States report on counterfeit or
suspect counterfeit electronic parts
The committee remains concerned about the counterfeit
electronic parts in the Department of Defense (DOD) supply
chain. While efforts have been made to secure the supply chain,
vulnerabilities still exist.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide the congressional defense committees a report
within 270 days of enactment of this Act.
The required report should contain an analysis of reports
relating to counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts
submitted to the Government Industry Data Exchange Program
(GIDEP) from January 2011 to present, including: (a) The number
of reports filed by original component manufacturers,
authorized distributors, independent distributors, and original
equipment manufacturers; and (b) The source of supply, i.e.,
original component manufacturers, authorized distributors, and
independent distributors, for parts identified in reports as
counterfeit or suspect counterfeit.
The required report should also contain a description of
DOD efforts to work with the defense industrial base to improve
contractor systems for the detection and avoidance of
counterfeit parts. Further, the report should describe
government or industry practices that detect counterfeit or
suspect counterfeit parts prior to their entry into the DOD
supply chain but do not fall under the GIDEP reporting
requirement, and make recommendations on how to best ensure
such cases are reported in the future.
Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense audit readiness
efforts for property, plant, and equipment
The committee notes that successful execution of Department
of Defense (DOD) military missions depends on a properly
equipped and supplied force. Maintaining accurate, reliable,
and accountable systems of record for mission critical assets,
including equipment, real property, inventory, and supplies, is
imperative.
The availability and accuracy of cost information for use
by Congress and DOD executives is critical in making decisions
about allocating scarce resources, authorizing and modifying
programs, and evaluating program performance.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of the DOD's plans to
achieve audit readiness with respect to its property, plant,
and equipment, and to submit a report on the findings to the
congressional defense committees within 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
The required report shall, at a minimum, include an
assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of requiring
asset valuations to be conducted as part of the statutory
requirement for audit readiness by September 30, 2017.
Government Accountability Office review of Nunn-McCurdy reporting
requirements applicable to major automated information systems
experiencing cost or schedule overruns
The committee notes that Chapter 144A of title 10, United
States Code, enacted as section 816 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, establishes a tiered
system for reporting cost and schedule overruns for Major
Automated Information Systems (MAIS) programs, similar to the
system established for reporting cost and schedule overruns on
Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) under Chapter 144 of
title 10--commonly referred to as the Nunn-McCurdy reporting
requirements.
Under Chapter 144A, as under Chapter 144, programs
experiencing a critical change to program requirements are
subject not only to congressional notification but also to a
program evaluation assessing: the projected cost and schedule
for completing the program if current requirements are not
modified, the projected cost and schedule for completing the
program based on reasonable modification of such requirements,
and the rough order of magnitude of the cost and schedule for
any reasonable alternative system or capability.
No funds may be obligated for a MAIS program experiencing a
critical change unless and until the program manager for the
program provides a written certification to Congress that: the
program is essential to the national security or to the
efficient management of the Department of Defense (DOD), there
is no alternative to the program that will provide equal or
greater capability at less cost, the new estimates of the
costs, schedule, and performance parameters have been
determined, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation, to be reasonable, and the
management structure for the program is adequate to manage and
control program costs.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to review DOD
implementation of the requirements of Chapter 144A and report
to the congressional defense committees on any findings and
recommendations from that review.
Joint Information Environment
The Department of Defense (DOD) is undertaking an ambitious
effort to realign and restructure how its many information
technology (IT) networks are constructed, operated, and
defended with the goal of providing better information access
to the user, improving the security of its networks and data,
and being more responsive to constantly changing technological
and operational factors.
This IT network alignment initiative is referred to as the
Joint Information Environment (JIE) and is led by the DOD Chief
Information Officer (CIO). According to the CIO, DOD plans on
utilizing the Services' existing programs, initiatives, and
technical refresh to deploy or migrate to JIE standards using
specific implementation guidance.
While a shared IT infrastructure across the DOD would
improve mission effectiveness, providing our military
commanders and civilian leaders with the most timely and
accurate data and information, DOD does not have a strong track
record implementing large-scale IT initiatives.
In particular, after 10 years and at least $379.0 million,
the DOD has still yet to develop a meaningful IT enterprise
architecture--the blueprint for defense system
interoperability--that has been fully federated (extended) to
the components.
In light of this, the committee directs the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the JIE initiative. At
a minimum, the GAO shall (1) ascertain the scope, costs, and
implementation plans for JIE, and (2) assess the extent to
which DOD is executing effective executive oversight and
governance of JIE.
The committee expects GAO to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2014.
Next Generation Enterprise Network
The committee notes that the Navy is investing considerable
resources in the planning, development, and implementation of
the Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN), which will serve
to replace the current Navy Marine Corps Intranet in supplying
information technology (IT) and data service to the Navy and
the Marine Corps.
The committee conceptually supports the Navy's planned
transition and acquisition strategy that is intended to procure
IT enterprise services, including network operating centers,
desktop applications, service desks, and computer server farms,
in a series of individually competed short-term contracts. If
realized, such an acquisition strategy would allow for frequent
recompetition allowing the Navy to acquire higher performance
capabilities at reduced costs.
The committee is concerned, however, that the integrated
nature of IT systems, and the tendency for bureaucratic and
cost barriers to prevent displacement of incumbent technologies
and contractors, will prevent the Navy from achieving this
desired competitive and flexible acquisition environment.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to report to the congressional defense committees by
September 30, 2014 on the methods and strategies it will use to
ensure it can continually re-compete contracts for hardware,
network services, enterprise services, and other capabilities
under the NGEN program individually, and without undue
advantage to incumbent technologies and contractors.
Performance Based Logistics
In 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) identified
performance-based logistics (PBL) as a preferred weapon system
support strategy. Within DOD, PBL is the purchase of
performance outcomes, such as system availability and
readiness, rather than the purchase of individual elements of
logistics support--such as parts, repairs, and engineering
support.
DOD guidance recommends that business case analysis be used
to guide decisionmaking regarding the implementation of PBL.
The committee supports the use of a business case analysis
and believes that the Services should have effective internal
controls to ensure that the analyses are prepared and that they
provide a consistent and comprehensive assessment of costs and
improvements to readiness.
The committee is aware of a number of PBL, including the
Navy's use for aviation tires and the Air Force's use for the
sustainment of the C-17, as well as discussions to expand PBL
to sustainment of the F117 engine fleet.
Reportedly, since the award of the PBL in 2000, the Navy
has achieved approximately $46.0 million in savings in
inventory reductions while producing on-time delivery
requirements of 99 percent and a reduction in delivery time
from 60 days to 36 hours inside the United States and to 66
hours outside the United States.
The C-17 PBL reduced cost-per-flight hour, reduced engine
overhaul turn-around time, and increased the sustained mission
capable rate, saving the Air Force hundreds of millions of
dollars.
To better understand the effectiveness and efficiency of
PBL, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide the
congressional defense committees with a plan for the future use
of PBL reflecting how the use of PBL can improve execution,
efficiency, cost, and readiness of applicable programs.
Report on Statement of Budgetary Activity to assess progress toward
auditability
The committee believes that a valuable means of
demonstrating Department of Defense (DOD) progress towards
auditability is for the Secretary of Defense to report on the
aggregate funding included in a Schedule of Budgetary Activity
by service branch and defense agency and appropriation, and
also the aggregate funding not included in such Schedules of
Budgetary Activity.
As the Schedules of Budgetary Activity are an interim step
toward a complete Statement of Budgetary Resources that
complies with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, it is
valuable for the committee to have available a means of
assessing DOD progress toward the statutory requirement to
produce auditable financial statements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report annually, 120 days after the end of the fiscal year,
on the aggregate DOD funding included in Schedules of Budgetary
Activity.
The report should include the aggregate level of funding
and also the percentage of total funding that is included in
DOD's Treasury certified Statement of Budgetary Resources
Financial Statement that is not included in a Schedule of
Budgetary Activities.
Small businesses and the health of the U.S. defense industrial base
The committee believes that a healthy defense industrial
base must include a large number of vibrant, growing, and
technologically-advanced small defense companies. Small defense
companies can provide a source of competition that drives down
costs and increases performance.
The committee is concerned that sequestration and the lack
of fiscal certainty have created a difficult business
environment, particularly for small companies that contract
with the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee believes
that DOD should continue its efforts to improve the health of
the defense industrial base, including small businesses. DOD
should continue to proactively seek to contract with small
defense companies, when appropriate, and the committee expects
DOD to strive to meet its small business contracting goals as
set forth in 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g))
annex.
Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report setting forth the following:
(1) The impact of defense sequestration on small
business concerns of the defense industrial base and
any associated national security consequences; and
(2) A determination if the effects of defense
sequestration have made DOD more reliant on sole source
procurements or reduced the pool of small business
offerors for critical weapon systems components.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and related
matters (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would combine the
Deputy Chief Management Officer position and the Chief
Information Officer position into the Chief Management Officer
position, redesignate the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the
Chief Operating Officer, eliminate the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense title except for Principal Deputy Under Secretaries
of Defense established by law, and redesignate the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs
as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations,
Energy, and Environment.
Additionally, this proposal seeks to make changes to
Chapter 4 of Title 10, United States Code, in order to
streamline the establishment provisions for certain officials
and ensure that policymaking requirements are provided for
separately from establishment provisions and to make other
clerical and conforming changes.
Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) designated the
Deputy Secretary of Defense as the Department of Defense (DOD)
Chief Management Officer, established an Under Secretary of
Defense-level Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) to assist
the Deputy Secretary, and named the under secretaries of the
military departments as their organizations' chief management
officers.
This legislation was intended to strengthen the management
of DOD's business operations and was the result of a series of
recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
and several think tanks that argued the need for a senior
official at DOD with significant authority and experience to
focus attention on enterprise-wide business transformation and
sustain progress at the highest levels of DOD.
The framework enacted into law was a compromise between
those such as then-Comptroller General David Walker who
advocated the creation of a second Deputy Secretary of Defense
focused solely on management, and those who asserted that no
reorganization was necessary to address DOD's persistent
business challenges.
Following enactment of the legislation, DOD moved quickly
to implement the new office of the DCMO with the mission of
integrating, synchronizing, and coordinating DOD's business
operations. On July 1, 2010, the first DCMO was confirmed by
the Senate and sworn in. At that time, DOD believed that the
new management structure put in place by the Fiscal Year 2008
NDAA was properly scoped and defined to enable DOD to make
significant progress in breaking down its functional
stovepipes.
The committee believes that while significant progress has
been made, it has become increasingly clear that additional
changes to the structure of the DCMO position are needed to
position DOD for success in its business mission.
Specifically, change is required to make the DCMO a co-
equal of the other Under Secretaries of Defense with the
independent statutory authorities necessary to introduce and
drive implementation of transformational change and improvement
in the Department's business operations.
The provision would therefore combine the DCMO position
with the Department's Chief Information Officer (CIO) position
and designate that individual as the Department's Chief
Management Officer (CMO). The CMO would be subject to the
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense
and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The Deputy Secretary of
Defense, previously designated as the CMO, would now be
designated as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the
Department.
The new CMO position would be directly after the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
and service secretaries in the order precedence and before the
remaining Under Secretaries of Defense. The position would be
assigned two Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense
(PDUSD) to assist in the execution of their duties, a PDUSD for
Management and a PDUSD for Information.
The proposed CMO position would unify roles and functions
traditionally performed by the CIO and strengthen the office by
making it a Senate-confirmed position again. The CMO would
exercise authority, direction, and control over the Information
Assurance Directorate (IAD) of the National Security Agency
(NSA). The bifurcation of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence into the ASD(NII) and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) led to the USD(I) supervising
the NSA IAD, despite the fact that the CIO, not the USD(I), is
responsible for information systems security, which is the
mission of the IAD.
A strengthened CIO will provide better management and
oversight of information technology, systems, and operations
within DOD, including over the U.S. Cyber Command.
Combining these offices also should produce some savings in
overhead.
The committee recognizes and is encouraged by the
significant progress that has been made to date on the use of
energy by the Department since the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs was first
established.
The committee is also encouraged by the DOD Energy Policy
(4180.01) published on April 16, 2014, and strongly intends for
the new position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy,
Installations, and Environment to: (1) Establish DOD energy
policy, goals, initiatives, oversight, and budgetary matters
for operational energy, installation energy, and environmental
matters including climate change, contingency basing, and
energy security; (2) Establish DOD energy boards and councils
as necessary to support DOD energy policies, plans, and
programs; (3) Oversee DOD energy planning, use, management, and
implementation; (4) Develop policy, guidelines, and provide
oversight for development, certification, qualification, field
demonstration, and ongoing purchases of alternative fuels for
operational platforms and demonstration of energy technologies;
(5) Support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) in
the requirements process regarding energy in accordance with
the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System Manual; (6) Promote energy-related issues,
programs, and accounts as an advisor to the Defense Acquisition
Board and other key acquisition bodies; (7) Advise the CJCS and
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy regarding the role of
energy in the DOD planning process across the full range of
military operations; (8) Oversee identification and mitigation
of energy-related risks and commercial grid challenges for DOD
infrastructure and missions in conjunction with other DOD risk
management and readiness programs; (9) Ensure investments are
made in facility infrastructure to reduce energy demand,
increase on-site distribution (including renewables), and
enhance the power resiliency on installations; (10) Oversee
facility energy technology programs and identify and support
the demonstration of energy technologies to address
installation needs; and (11) Collaborate with other
governmental organizations and the private sector on energy-
related matters.
Additionally, the committee maintains that the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment
may communicate views directly to the Secretary of Defense and
the Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the approval
or concurrence of any other official within the DOD.
Additionally, the new position of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment will
serve as the Department's designated Senior Real Property
Officer and be responsible for providing budgetary, policy, and
management oversight of the DOD's real property portfolio;
managing the Base Realignment and Closure activities for
domestic installations and facility consolidation and
realignment efforts overseas; and managing environmental
compliance, conservation, and clean-up programs.
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (sec.
902)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 138 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate the
position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs
as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs, whose principal duty would be the overall supervision
of manpower and reserve affairs of the Department of Defense.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Modifications to requirements for accounting for members of the Armed
Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as
missing (sec. 911)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 76 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a
defense agency within the Department of Defense, headed by a
Director, to have responsibility over the Prisoner of War/
Missing in Action accounting community. The provision would
create a new section 1501a of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into public-private
partnerships for the purposes of facilitating the accounting of
missing persons. The provision would require the Secretary to
assign or detail to the defense agency a full-time senior
medical examiner to provide medical oversight of the
identification process, to establish identification and
laboratory policy, and to advise the Director on forensic
scientific disciplines. Finally, the provision would require
the Secretary to establish and maintain a single centralized
database and case management system containing information on
all missing persons for whom a file has been established.
Items of Special Interest
Headquarters Reductions of the Department of Defense
The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to reduce
management headquarters in the Department of Defense (DOD) by
20 percent. These reductions are intended to reverse the growth
in such headquarters and garner efficiencies that can be used
to decrease overhead in favor of mission needs.
The fiscal year 2015 budget materials submitted by the
President projects that DOD will save $5.3 billion through 2019
by such reductions. While a significant sum, this is a tiny
fraction of DOD's overall spending and the committee is
increasingly convinced that DOD's planned efforts will not
result in as much of a reduction as they should be able to
achieve.
Moreover, in May 2013, the Comptroller General reported
that the geographic combatant commands, excluding U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM) which led U.S. efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, had grown by 50 percent over the past decade.
Ongoing work by the Comptroller General being conducted for
this committee has found even larger growth at CENTCOM, as well
as the functional combatant commands, the service secretariats
and service staffs, the Joint Staff, defense-wide combat
support agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
In general, the Comptroller General has found a lack of
discipline in setting and validating requirements for
individual headquarters, as well as poor visibility into the
total resources being devoted across organizations to similar
functions and missions. As a result, the committee lacks
confidence that DOD has a clear grasp of the personnel it needs
to conduct its missions or that current plans will reverse the
extensive growth of the past decade.
To achieve significant savings, the Secretary of Defense
must focus on consolidating and eliminating organizations and
personnel that perform similar functions and missions.
In March 2012, the Comptroller General reported
longstanding problems in the way that DOD tracks its
headquarters spending and found that DOD could likely achieve
additional savings by consolidating or eliminating
organizations that are geographically close or managed by the
same executive agent nearby and by expanding the span of
control or by centralizing functions and services, such as
administrative and support.
In January 2014, the Defense Business Board (DBB) reported
that such de-layering will be critical to achieving real
savings and would improve efficiency by reducing layers of
review and coordination.
The DBB concluded that DOD's current efforts might generate
savings near term but would not be the most efficient approach
in the longer term for a number of reasons. The DBB estimated
that DOD could save up to $8.0 billion annually if they took a
more systematic approach.
The committee is concerned about DOD's efforts to stem the
apparent growth in support functions such as, among others,
budget, policy, legal, and personnel management across the
organizations.
Of particular note is that much of the growth in
headquarters appears to be driven by the need to support the
growing bureaucracy itself; for instance, the personal staff of
some combatant commanders exceeds one-fifth of their entire
organization while others have a much lower proportion of their
personnel in the front office. In addition, some mission-
related functions, such as intelligence and planning, also
appear to have grown dramatically.
To assist in ongoing congressional oversight and ensure
that the Secretary of Defense achieves meaningful and durable
savings in its headquarters overhead, the committee directs the
Comptroller General to identify: (1) Trends in specific budget
lines reflecting the growth in personnel, mission and other
resources at headquarters units; (2) Trends in personnel,
mission, and resource growth across functional areas across
related organizations; (3) The extent DOD and the military
services have taken steps to eliminate or consolidate
overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative functions; (4) The
extent to which DOD and the military services have eliminated
both the civilian billets or contractor positions and the
associated funding with those positions; (5) Whether efforts to
date constitute a systematic and comprehensive approach; (6)
Actual savings to date from announced reductions in personnel,
mission, or other resources since fiscal year 2012; (7) any
additional steps DOD should take to realize substantial
additional savings; (8) Whether captured, planned, or
recommended reductions warrant an evaluation of the rank of the
individual heading each relevant organization; and (9) Other
matters the Comptroller General determines are appropriate as
this review is conducted.
The organizations that shall be considered in this cross-
cutting review are 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-wide combat support
agencies.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the
preliminary results of the study no later than October 2014 and
may report the results of the study in one or more reports as
deemed appropriate to the Comptroller General as agreed to by
the committee.
Plan on satisfying emergent warfighter needs
The committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to
capture and institutionalize the lessons learned from more than
a decade of wartime rapid acquisition and to streamline and
consolidate the organizations, capabilities, and resources
devoted to fulfilling urgent and emergent operational needs.
The committee supports the efforts by the former Deputy
Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, to organize DOD
organizations and capabilities to respond quickly to emerging
warfighter requirements as outlined in his September 6, 2013,
memorandum.
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) required the
Secretary of Defense to provide a study and report on the
effectiveness of the processes used by DOD to generate and
satisfy urgent operational needs. The resulting Defense Science
Board (DSB) report offered a number of improvements to this
process.
This DSB report predicted that as the push of wartime needs
subsides, the ability to rapidly field critical equipment and
weapons systems will decline. The committee believes that DOD
should maintain this important capability.
While it is true that unanticipated and vital warfighter
requirements, including Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON)
and Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEON), will continue to
arise that must be addressed quickly, the committee believes
that further consolidation of the organizations and processes
are warranted.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) in
coordination with the secretaries of the military departments,
the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), the Under Secretary of
Defense (Intelligence), the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, and the Director
of the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office, to
present the congressional defense committees with a plan to
consolidate any enduring functions of the organizations,
capabilities, and funding associated with the following
organizations: the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization; the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell; the Warfighter
Senior Integration Group; the Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Task Force; the Afghanistan Resources Oversight
Council; and along with any other defense-wide or military
department-specific organizations, capabilities, and funding
associated with comparable JUON or JEON efforts.
The plan shall also include the organization, or
organizations, under which the aforementioned organizations
will be consolidated. The objective of this consolidation
should be to eliminate headquarters organizations to the
maximum extent practicable while maintaining the critical
ability to meet emergent warfighter requirements in a rapid and
effective manner with a sense of urgency commensurate with
identified needs and risks.
The committee expects the required plan to include any
lessons learned by the rapid acquisition organizations since
2001, and how these lessons learned are incorporated into
current policy and processes for satisfying JUON and JEON.
The committee directs the USD (AT&L) to provide an interim
report to the congressional defense committees no later than
September 30, 2014, and a final report no later than February
2, 2015.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in
division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of
funds between military personnel authorizations would not be
counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision.
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. This fund would be
responsible for obligation and expenditure of funds for
construction (including design of vessels), purchase,
alteration, and conversion of strategic missile submarines.
The committee recognizes that there will be challenges to
affordability as the Department of the Navy and the Department
of Defense seek to replace the Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarines as they approach the end of their useful service
lives. In testimony before the committee, the Chief of Naval
Operations stated, ``I am increasingly concerned about our
ability to fund the Ohio Replacement ballistic missile
submarine (SSBN) program--our highest priority program--within
our current and projected resources.''
The committee believes that establishing a separate fund
for pursuing construction of the Ohio-class replacement
submarines is a first important step to ensuring that the
program has the appropriate visibility within the
administration and within Congress to ensure that the Ohio
Replacement Program moves forward with the appropriate level of
visibility and management attention.
The committee recommends an authorization of $100.0 million
for the fund.
Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on the devastating impact that the
statutory budget caps are having on the Department of Defense
and our national security and the need for legislation to
adjust those caps.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and
counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
3 fiscal years the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and
counterterrorism campaign of the Government of Colombia
(section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as most recently amended
by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)), as well as extend the
expanded congressional notification requirement.
The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has
made and continues to make progress against transnational
narcotics trafficking organizations and designated foreign
terrorist organizations. This type of flexible authority is
still required to assist the Government of Colombia to
consolidate its gains, but the committee expects to see
continued reductions in the level of assistance provided to
Colombia, as has been agreed to in our bilateral engagements
with the Government of Colombia.
Extension and modification of authority for joint task forces
supporting law enforcement agencies conducting activities to
counter transnational organized crime to support law
enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities
(sec. 1012)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as most recently amended
by section 1012 of the the National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to: (1) Extend the
underlying authority through fiscal year 2020; (2) Expand the
scope of the Department of Defense (DOD) authority to provide
support to U.S. law enforcement agencies for counterterrorism
purposes when a nexus exists between drug trafficking or
transnational organized crime (TOC) and a foreign terrorist
organization; (3) Make a series of technical modifications; and
(4) Expand the authority of DOD to support counter illicit
trafficking activities in certain circumstances.
As the committee notes elsewhere in this report, the
Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, released by
the President on July 19, 2011, sought to increase DOD's
support to U.S. law enforcement efforts to combat TOC. As such,
the committee believes this modification to DOD's longstanding
counterdrug authority is necessary to ensure DOD is able to
fully support both U.S. law enforcement and foreign partners.
Further, the committee expects DOD to leverage this
modification to increase its counter threat finance
intelligence activities. ``Cash is king'' for illicit
organizations that operate in narcotics, transnational crime,
and terrorism, and--as DOD has learned through its threat
finance cell operations in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past
decade--understanding the financing activities of illicit
networks is critical to minimizing the threat posed to U.S.
national security interests and enabling the use of law
enforcement, financial, or other tools to disrupt such
activities. The committee expects that DOD will focus on any
expansion of its activities pursuant to this authority on the
Haqqani network and al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic
Maghreb.
Extension of authority to provide additional support for counter-drug
activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 1013)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently amended
by section 1013 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). Specifically, the
provision would extend the Department of Defense's (DOD)
authority to provide additional support for counter-drug
activities of certain foreign governments through fiscal year
2020, as well as increase the cap on the limitation on
obligations from $100.0 million to $125.0 million per fiscal
year.
The committee notes that DOD has increased its utilization
of this authority in recent years and in fiscal year 2014,
according to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Counter-narcotics and Global Threats, DOD has received
validated requests for more than $100.0 million from the
combatant commanders. The committee further notes that under
the current funding limitation, DOD will reject validated
requests from the combatant commanders for countries that are
prepared to increase their capacity to combat the flow of
narcotics and to assist the U.S. Government in its counter-
narcotics operations.
The committee also notes that the number of countries
eligible to receive so-called section 1033 assistance has
increased in recent years as a result of the growing presence
of transnational criminal organizations operating across many
parts of Africa a region the committee continues to believe DOD
should expand its current programming. As such, the committee
expects that DOD will look to initiate programs in the AFRICOM
area of responsibility with this increase in the availability
of funds.
Extension and modification of authority of Department of Defense to
provide additional support for counterdrug activities of other
governmental agencies (sec. 1014)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510), as most recently amended
by section 1005 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to authorize the
Department of Defense (DOD) to provide additional support for
activities of other governmental agencies to counter
transnational organized crime (TOC) in addition to its
counterdrug activities. The provision would also extend the
underlying authority through the end of fiscal year 2020 and
reduce the dollar threshold for a notification on facilities
projects to the congressional defense committees.
The committee notes that the Commander of U.S. Southern
Command (SOUTHCOM) and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command
have testified before the committee about the corrosive effect
of TOC on every institution in the partner nations in their
respective areas of responsibility. Furthermore, the committee
is aware of research indicating the increasing convergence of
threats to U.S. national security--including narcotics
trafficking and terrorism--with TOC networks. The committee
notes that the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized
Crime, released by the President on July 19, 2011, sought to
enhance DOD's support to U.S. law enforcement. As such, the
committee believes this modification to DOD's longstanding
counterdrug authority is necessary to ensure DOD is able to
fully support U.S. law enforcement and foreign partners.
For purposes of implementation guidance, the committee
believes the National Strategy to Combat Transnational
Organized Crime provides a good definition of TOC. It states
that TOC ``refers to those self-perpetuating associations of
individuals who operate transnationally for the purpose of
obtaining power, influence, monetary, and/or commercial gains,
wholly or in part by illegal means, while protecting their
activities through a pattern of corruption and/or violence, or
while protecting their illegal activities through a
transnational organizational structure and the exploitation of
transnational commerce or communication mechanisms.''
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Limitation on use of funds for inactivation of U.S.S. George Washington
(sec. 1021)
The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the
Navy from obligating or expending any funds in fiscal year 2015
on inactivating the U.S.S. George Washington (CVN-73) unless
such obligation or expenditure is to support tasks that are
identical to tasks that would be necessary to conduct a
refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship.
The Navy had planned to conduct an RCOH on CVN-73,
beginning in fiscal year 2016. The fiscal year 2015 budget
request altered that plan to drop the RCOH and inactivate CVN-
73. Congress has already authorized and appropriated $329.7
million for the CVN-73 RCOH. The plan for fiscal year 2015
submitted with the fiscal year 2014 budget for the Navy was to
request another $491.1 million for advance procurement of the
CVN-73 RCOH.
In lieu of the plan, the fiscal year 2015 budget request
and the future years defense program (FYDP) supports
inactivation of CVN-73. Department of Defense (DOD) officials
have stated DOD will defer the decision until 2016 on whether
to refuel and maintain CVN-73 or inactivate the ship.
The committee is concerned that DOD submitted a fiscal year
2015 budget request and FYDP that are inconsistent with DOD's
stated intent to defer a decision on the refueling, and with
the requirement of section 5062(b) of title 10, United States
Code, that the Navy maintain 11 operational aircraft carriers.
In testimony, Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel confirmed
that 11 carriers are a statutory requirement saying, ``We
follow the authorization and appropriations direction of
Congress. We follow the law.'' Secretary Hagel explained the
dichotomy between an avowed plan to maintain 11 operational
aircraft carriers and the FYDP by saying he was waiting for a
sign from someone, presumably Congress, that DOD would get the
partial relief from the effects of sequestration reflected in
the FYDP.
The committee has seen no evidence that the requirement for
maintaining 11 operational carriers has diminished. In fact,
senior Navy leaders have repeatedly stated the need for 11
carriers as the minimum number required to execute the
President's National Military Strategy. Senior military
officers have testified that global requirements argue for an
even larger number of aircraft carriers. The Commander of U.S.
Pacific Command noted that, ``Based on the world as it is,
about 11 aircraft carriers is just--is just barely making it
today.''
The aircraft carrier remains the most visible projection of
military force abroad and is an effective instrument for
shaping the perception of allies and potential foes alike. The
committee is concerned that inactivating an aircraft carrier
with 20 to 30 years of useful service life remaining is a very
inefficient use of defense resources and would be inconsistent
with implementing the administration's strategic shift toward
the Asia-Pacific region, and such an action would send the
wrong signals about our determination to support that shift.
Complying with the letter of this section requires that the
administration either submit a budget that supports a fleet
with 11 operational aircraft carriers or submit a legislative
proposal to amend title 10 to readjust the requirement. The
administration has done neither. This provision would ensure
that the Navy maintains a path of obligations and expenditures
consistent with the statutory requirement to maintain 11
operational aircraft carriers.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report
on the effect on capabilities for power projection and global
engagement, as it affects the Navy's ability to meet the
Defense Strategic Guidance, moving to a permanent force
structure of fewer than 11 operational carriers. This report
should include a classified annex that describes the Navy's
ability to meet the combatant commanders' requirements, both at
the current force level and the impact of a force level with
fewer than the required 11 operational carriers. This report
should also specify what the effects of such action would be on
operational deployments, overall readiness, and on sailors and
their families. The report should identify potential effects on
the shipbuilding industrial base, on the remainder of the RCOH
program, on other shipbuilding programs, and on other
acquisition programs. The Secretary of the Navy should submit
that report with the fiscal year 2016 budget request.
Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of Ticonderoga
class cruisers or dock landing ships (sec. 1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
rules under which the Navy could use resources in the Ship,
Modernization, Operations, and Sustainment Fund (SMOSF) to
implement a plan to: (1) Retain 11 Ticonderoga-class cruisers
and 9 Whidbey Island-class and Harpers Ferry-class dock landing
ships in active service; (2) Temporarily inactivate 11
Ticonderoga-class cruisers and 3 Whidbey Island-class dock
landing ships; (3) Modernize the inactivated ships during the
period of their inactivation; and (4) Reactivate those ships to
replace cruisers and dock landing ships retiring at the end of
their expected service lives.
The provision would require that the Secretary of the Navy
retain the cruisers and dock landing ships until the end of
their expected service lives, and use SMOSF only to sustain and
modernize the vessels.
The provision would also require the Secretary of the Navy
to submit an annual report with the budget request. The report
would describe the status of the SMOSF, including specific
financial information, such as starting and ending fiscal year
corpus balances, providing a detailed obligation and
expenditure plan by vessel, and including information detailing
all transfers into and out of the SMOSF by appropriation
account.
The committee further directs the Secretary to ensure that
the annual budget justification material for the SMOSF include
detailed information at the vessel level. In addition, the
committee directs the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to
provide execution reports for the SMOSF that treats each vessel
like a line item within the SMOSF.
Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on extended deployments
(sec. 1023)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
additional flexibility for the Secretary of the Navy to
maintain Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) by allowing government
personnel or U.S. contractor personnel to conduct corrective
and preventive maintenance on an LCS vessel regardless of the
ship's location.
Because an LCS vessel has a smaller crew than other Navy
vessels, much of the corrective and preventative maintenance
must be performed by personnel not in the ship's force. The
Secretary of Navy needs added flexibility in conducting this
maintenance to ensure that the Navy can sustain readiness,
particularly on forward-deployed LCS vessels.
Authority for limited coastwise trade for certain vessels providing
transportation services under a shipbuilding or ship repair
contract with the Secretary of the Navy (sec. 1024)
The committee recommends a provision that would enable the
Secretary of the Navy to authorize shipbuilding or ship repair
contractors owning U.S.-built dry docks, tugboats, and towing
vessels to engage in limited coastwise trade for purposes of
performing a shipbuilding or ship repair contract entered into
with the Department of the Navy.
Currently a contractor under foreign ownership, control, or
influence can only utilize its own vessel to perform Navy
shipbuilding and ship repair contracts within the continental
United States if a limited waiver for that vessel to engage in
coastwise trade is granted. Such waivers are only granted on a
case-by-case basis through a very burdensome administrative
process involving three different agencies of the Federal
Government. This is because foreign ownership precludes such a
vessel from meeting the definition of a ``U.S.-flagged
vessel,'' even if the vessel was built in the United States and
was manned by crew composed of U.S. citizens.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit,
for fiscal year 2015, the transfer or release of detainees held
at Guantanamo (GTMO) to or within the United States, its
territories, or possessions, until the Secretary of Defense
submits to the appropriate committees of Congress a detailed
plan to close the GTMO detention facility and Congress has
voted on a joint resolution of disapproval under expedited
procedures. If a joint resolution of disapproval is not
enacted, then the Secretary would be authorized to transfer
GTMO detainees to the United States for detention, trial, and
incarceration. Other conditions that must be met before a
transfer under this section can take place are a determination
by the Secretary that doing so is in the national security
interest of the United States, that steps have been taken to
address any risk to public safety, and the appropriate
congressional committees are notified not later than 30 days in
advance of any such transfer. The provision would ensure that
the legal rights applicable to detainees held at GTMO remain
unchanged as a result of their transfer under this authority.
Report on facilitation of transfer overseas of certain individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(sec. 1032)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report to the
appropriate committees of Congress on impediments to the
transfer overseas of Guantanamo detainees and the actions that
have been or are planned to be taken to overcome such
impediments and facilitate overseas transfers.
Section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) provides the Secretary of
Defense a more flexible authority to transfer Guantanamo
detainees overseas. The committee notes that to date, a very
limited number of Guantanamo detainees have been transferred
overseas under this new authority. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to address diplomatic, security, and other
impediments to overseas transfers of Guantanamo detainees and
use the full extent of the authority provided by section 1035
to complete such transfers, as appropriate and consistent with
U.S. national security interests.
Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States for
emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1033)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the temporary transfer of Guantanamo (GTMO) detainees to a
military medical facility in the United States for the sole
purpose of providing emergency or critical medical treatment
that is not available at GTMO and is necessary to prevent the
death or imminent significant injury or harm to the
individual's health. The detainee would not be admitted into
the United States during the period of medical treatment and
must be returned to GTMO as soon as medically feasible. The
Secretary of Defense would be required to notify the
appropriate committees of Congress of any transfer under this
authority not later than 30 days in advance of the transfer or,
if the need for emergency medical treatment is immediate, not
later than 5 days after the transfer.
The committee makes note of the U.S. obligations under
domestic law and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to
provide for the humane treatment of detainees in its custody.
The authority granted under this section would address concerns
raised by the Commander, U.S. Southern Command, and others
regarding the level of medical care available to GTMO detainees
and the challenges, taking into account the aging of that
detainee population, of ensuring humane treatment.
Prohibition on transfer or release to Yemen of individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of Department of Defense funds to transfer, release, or
otherwise assist in the transfer or release, of any Guantanamo
detainee to Yemen during the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2015.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Reduction in Department of Defense civilian personnel and review of
certain headquarters spending (sec. 1041)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees, not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, on Department of Defense (DOD) civilian
positions, including the number of civilian positions created
between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2013, as a result
of military to civilian conversions, the number of positions
created as temporary positions that are being converted back to
military positions, and the number of civilian positions that
have been or are being eliminated.
The provision would also express the sense of Congress that
the number of civilian positions should be reduced
simultaneously with, and by the same percentages, as the
corresponding reductions in military end strengths.
The provision would also require the Secretary to review
spending on headquarters in commands below major command with
the objective of reducing such spending by not less than 10
percent.
The provision would also require the updating of various
DOD instructions and regulations to improve tracking and
reporting headquarters personnel and resources.
Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to protect the buildings, grounds, and
property that are under the jurisdiction, custody, or control
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and persons on that
property. The provision provides that the Secretary may
designate personnel to: (1) Enforce federal laws and
regulations for the protection of persons and property; (2)
Carry firearms; (3) Make arrests; and (4) Conduct
investigations of offenses against the property of the DOD.
This new authority would not apply in those locations
currently under the protection of the Federal Protective
Service, for example, office buildings provided by the General
Services Administration in which DOD organizations are tenants.
Authority to accept certain voluntary legal support services (sec.
1043)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1588(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries to accept voluntary legal support services
provided by law students through internship and externship
programs approved by the secretary concerned.
Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau among leadership of the
Department of Defense provided physical protection and personal
security (sec. 1044)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to include the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau as one of the specified persons in
the Department of Defense who, by nature of their positions,
require continuous security and protection.
Inclusion of regional organizations in authority for assignment of
civilian employees of the Department of Defense as advisors to
foreign ministries of defense (sec. 1045)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-84), as most recently amended
by section 1094 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to expand the authority
of the Secretary of Defense to provide Department of Defense
advisors to regional organizations.
The committee notes that regional conflicts and other
security challenges continue in the Middle East, Eastern
Europe, and Africa, and that an expanded authority that allows
the Secretary of Defense to provide advisors to regional
organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), or other comparable regional
organization, would better enable the Secretary to advance U.S.
national security and mutual security objectives in specific
regions.
The committee notes that the United States is working with
its GCC partner nations to improve regional air and missile
defense capabilities, including data sharing and multilateral
cooperation. The committee believes that such multilateral
cooperation would enhance regional security and would provide
significant improvements beyond national and bi-national
capabilities. The expansion of the so-called Minister of
Defense Advisor program to regional organizations is a prudent
step that could assist in advancing the regional security
objectives stated by the Secretary of Defense at the 2013
Manama Dialogue.
Extension of authority to waive reimbursement of costs of activities
for nongovernmental personnel at Department of Defense regional
centers for security studies (sec. 1046)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement
for the Department of Defense (DOD) to seek reimbursement for
the costs associated with the attendance of personnel from
nongovernmental DOD regional centers for security studies, as
most recently amended by section 1094(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66).
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports
Reports on recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure
of the Air Force (sec. 1061)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to submit annual reports for each
fiscal year from 2016 through 2019 on how the Air Force is
implementing the recommendations of the National Commission on
the Structure of the Air Force. In the first such report, the
Secretary would be required to establish milestones for the Air
Force's review of the Commission recommendations, and a
preliminary implementation plan for such recommendations that
do not require further review. Subsequent reports would
identify progress in achieving milestones established in
previous reports and establish milestones for implementing
those recommendations for which analysis of the recommendation
had been completed since the previous report.
The Air Force staff indicates that the Air Force: (1)
Agrees with 10 recommendations now; (2) Agrees in principle
with 26 other recommendations, but requires some further
clarification on those; (3) Has no position on 5
recommendations that will require further analysis; and (4)
Disagrees with one recommendation. The recommendation with
which the Air Force disagrees is one to disestablish the Air
Force Reserve Command, which would require a change in
legislation. The Air Force staff further indicates that they
will have completed roughly four-fifths of their reviews of the
other 41 recommendations by the end of calendar year 2014.
Therefore, the committee expects that the Secretary's first
report will establish milestones for most, if not all, 41
Commission recommendations.
Review of operation of certain ships during the Vietnam era (sec. 1062)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review, by not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the logs of each Navy ship
known to have operated in the waters near Vietnam between
January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, to determine whether the ship
operated in the territorial waters of the Republic of Vietnam
during that period, and, for each ship that operated in these
waters during that time, the date or dates that the ship so
operated and the distance from the shore of the location where
the ship operated. The Secretary would be required to provide
this determination and information to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
Assessment of the operations research tools, processes, and
capabilities in support of requirements analysis for major
defense acquisition programs and allocation of intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance assets (sec. 1063)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), in
consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)), and the
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), to
conduct an assessment of the operations research tools,
processes, and capabilities used to support the analysis of
requirements for new systems acquisitions and the analysis,
validation, and prioritization of requirements for the
allocation of existing intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) assets to the combatant commands. The
provision would require the VCJCS, the USD (AT&L), and the
Director of CAPE to brief Congress on the results of this
assessment within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
The provision would also require the VCJCS to provide to
the congressional defense and intelligence committees, within
90 days of enactment of this Act, the data collected and the
operations research analysis of that data used to validate the
requirements submitted by the combatant commands for ISR asset
allocation under the Global Force Management Process (GFMAP)
for fiscal year 2015 and to determine ISR asset allocation.
The committee has long been concerned about the
standardization and quality of the analysis conducted of
requirements for systems acquisition programs in the Department
of Defense (DOD), and of the GFMAP to validate and prioritize
resources in a manner that does not over-allocate resources to
one combatant commander. Senior officials in the Joint Staff J-
8 Directorate (Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment)
informed the committee 2 years ago that substantial
improvements were needed in the analysis of requirements for
new acquisition programs in order to adequately balance cost,
performance, schedule, and risk. The committee was also
informed that the J-8 lacked sufficient operations research
expertise and planned to add personnel to the Directorate's
staff, and to work with CAPE to access CAPE's analytic
expertise and resources for front-end requirements analysis.
These initiatives were not implemented.
The Defense Science Board Advisory Group (DSB AG) on
Defense Intelligence issued a report in January 2009, titled,
``Operations Research Applications for Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance.'' This study included a broad
review of the use of operations research methods across DOD and
the commitment of decisionmakers to base their decisions on the
outcome of this rigorous type of analysis. The AG concluded
that operations research is a ``powerful tool to help improve
the quality of investment decision making . . . in which
significant consequences and resources are at stake.'' The AG
noted that operations research cannot be institutionalized
``without strong commitment, support, and advocacy from senior
leadership.'' The AG concluded that ``save for a few `points of
light,' operations research is in decline and not universally
valued in decision making, especially at the strategic level,
and with respect to investment decisions and systems
acquisition.''
With respect to the GFMAP for ISR asset allocation, the
level of analysis supporting geographic combatant command
requirements is inconsistent, with some commands struggling to
define and defend their requirements. There is also
insufficient analysis and standardization of data collected for
the validation and prioritization of submitted requirements at
the Joint Staff level, and inadequate processes to inform
allocation decisions with a comprehensive awareness of, and
deconfliction with, collection assets and activities that are
not included in the GFMAP. One consequence of these
shortcomings has been that a few commands garner almost all of
the ISR assets committed to the GFMAP.
The committee fully understands that the needs of one or
more combatant commands can be dominant, as has been the case
for U.S. Central Command since September 11, 2001, but the
committee doubts that a rigorous analysis would consistently
rank the lowest priorities of one or more combatant commands
higher than the highest priorities of other combatant commands.
The committee notes that at least two geographic combatant
commands have less than 10 percent of their total requirements
being met. In the case of one of those combatant commands, U.S.
Africa Command (AFRICOM), the threat from terrorism and the
inability of the GFMAP to prioritize and allocate additional
ISR resources gives the committee pause. Over the last 3 years,
AFRICOM has seen the emergence of numerous conflicts including
major conflagrations in Mali, South Sudan, Central African
Republic, and Libya. The inability of the GFMAP to prioritize
and allocate ISR resources have resulted in skewed allocations
of ISR resources, leaving the DOD unable to predict or respond
to emerging crises.
A decade ago, DOD established the Joint Functional
Component Command for ISR (JFCC-ISR) under United States
Strategic Command. An independent assessment group was created
in the JFCC-ISR to analyze requirements and the performance of
deployed ISR assets. This group has some operations research
expertise and capacity, and has endeavored to collect data and
analyze needs for and the performance of ISR assets. However,
the committee is concerned that these analyses have not led to
any improvement in requirements generation and validation, or
greater efficiency in the use of ISR assets.
The committee believes DOD must improve its ability to
analyze, validate, and prioritize both new systems acquisitions
and the allocation of ISR assets to the combatant commands. If
the Joint Staff is unable to present convincing analyses or
arbitrate effectively between the combatant commands, changes
need to be made.
Review of United States military strategy and the force posture of
allies and partners in the United States Pacific Command area
of responsibility (sec. 1064)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to commission an independent review of the
U.S. Asia-Pacific re-balance, with a focus on policy issues
that will be critical for the next 10 years, following the
enactment of this Act.
The organization shall submit to the Secretary of Defense
an unclassified report along with a classified annex not later
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.
Not later than 90 days after receipt of the report, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit the report and its annex to
the congressional defense committees, along with any comments
the Secretary deems appropriate.
Department of Defense policies on community involvement in Department
community outreach events (sec. 1065)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act, a report on the policies of the Department of Defense
(DOD) on the involvement of non-Federal entities in DOD
community outreach events (including, but not limited to, air
shows, parades, and open houses) that feature any unit,
aircraft, vessel, equipment, or members of the Armed Forces.
Comptroller General of the United States briefing and report on
management of the conventional ammunition demilitarization
stockpile of the Department of Defense (sec. 1066)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing
to the congressional defense committees on the management of
the conventional ammunition demilitarization stockpile of the
Department of Defense no later than April 30, 2015. The
briefing shall be followed by a report no later than June 1,
2015.
Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 1067)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal or
modify a number of reporting requirements that have been
included in law in past years. The requirements recommended for
repeal or modification in this provision are requirements
identified by the committee as being no longer relevant or
necessary and that can be repealed or modified without
adversely affecting the committee's oversight responsibilities.
Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the United States
annual reviews and report on pilot program on commercial fee-
for-service air refueling support for the Air Force (sec. 1068)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
requirement for a Comptroller General review of a pilot program
on commercial fee-for-service air refueling support for the Air
Force. Since enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-81), the pilot program has
yet to be used.
Subtitle G--Uniformed Services Voting
PART I--PROVISION OF VOTER ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
Provision of annual voter assistance (sec. 1071)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 80 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to develop an online system to provide
annual voting assistance to active duty servicemembers.
Designation of voter assistance offices (sec. 1072)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1566a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize,
but not require, service secretaries to designate offices on
military installations to provide absent uniformed services
voters and their family members with voting information and
assistance.
PART II--ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS
Repeal of electronic voting demonstration project (sec. 1076)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 1604 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) that requires the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an electronic voting
demonstration project for absent military voters.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Biennial surveys of Department of Defense civilian employees on
workplace and gender relations matters (sec. 1081)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 23 of title 10, United States Code, to require biennial
surveys of civilian employees of the Department of Defense
(DOD) to solicit information on gender issues, including issues
relating to gender-based assault, harassment, and
discrimination, and the climate in the DOD for forming
professional relationships between male and female employees of
the DOD. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the
feasibility of conducting similar surveys of military
dependents and DOD contractors.
Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory Panel from
Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (sec. 1082)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Department of Defense (DOD) more flexibility in engaging with
the National Ocean Partnership Program and the Ocean Research
Advisory Panel (ORAP). The committee believes that this
flexibility will allow DOD and the Navy to balance the
application of resources for this activity with other potential
activities and is consistent with the Secretary of Defense's
Efficiency Initiatives. The committee notes that much of the
work of ORAP has been more related to civilian ocean research
issues, rather than defense-related matters. The committee
further notes that this provision was recommended by the
Administration and DOD.
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
(sec. 1083)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5911 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to establish a government lodging program
and to require its use by servicemembers and Department of
Defense (DOD) civilians performing official travel. The
provision would also require the Secretary to report to the
appropriate congressional committees within 18 months on DOD's
implementation of this program and savings achieved.
Expansion of authority for Secretary of Defense to use the Department
of Defense reimbursement rates for transportation services
provided to certain non-Department of Defense entities (sec.
1084)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2642 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the
authority to provide transportation services beyond other
Federal agencies to include: (1) State, local, and tribal
agencies (including any organizations composed of State, local,
and tribal agencies); and (2) Defense contractors, when those
contractors are transporting supplies for, or destined for, a
Department of Defense entity.
Pilot program to rehabilitate and modify homes of disabled and low-
income veterans (sec. 1085)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a pilot
program to award grants to qualified organizations to
rehabilitate and modify the primary residence of eligible
veterans.
Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1086)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical and clerical corrections to title 10, United States
Code, and various National Defense Authorization Acts.
Items of Special Interest
Army force structure and installation alignment
The committee is aware of the Army's end strength and force
structure reductions and changes made last year in accordance
with the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG). The DSG
directed the reduction of Army active end strength to 490,000
soldiers and the inactivation of eight combat brigades.
In this regard, the Subcommittee on Airland, in a March
2013 letter, requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO)
assessment of the Army's analysis and decisionmaking processes
associated with planned force structure reductions and their
alignment with installations. The GAO's assessment, reported in
December 2013, noted that the Army used a variety of analyses
to inform its decisionmaking processes, including ``obtaining
input through open meetings with communities around
installations being considered for stationing changes.'' The
GAO recommended that the Army needed to update and document its
rules for future analysis of force structure realignments and
stationing decisions.
The committee notes that, in order to meet Budget Control
Act caps, the Army plans the additional active Army end
strength reductions to 450,000 soldiers by fiscal year 2017.
This will result in additional unit inactivations at Army posts
around the country. The committee is interested to learn how
the Army has updated its analysis and decisionmaking processes
and how it will incorporate its 2013 decisions for force
realignments into another round of reductions. Accordingly, the
Secretary of the Army, or designee, shall provide a report to
the congressional defense committees, not later than April 30,
2015, that:
(1) Identifies the analytical methodology and
decisionmaking processes that will be used for force
structure reductions related to active end strength of
450,000 soldiers or less by 2017 or beyond;
(2) Identifies the changes to the methodology or
process, as recommended by the GAO;
(3) Details the schedule for conducting its analysis,
including completion of environmental assessments and
planned public meetings or information sessions with
installations' communities;
(4) Details how implementation of force realignment
decisions made in 2013 are being or will be executed,
and how uninitiated, incomplete, and planned force
realignments will be incorporated into the assessment
of installations; and
(5) Certifies that the Army will comply with the
requirements of chapter 55, title 42, United States
Code, (National Environmental Policy Act), and with the
requirements of section 993, title 10, United States
Code, for prompt congressional notification of
additional force structure modifications, reductions,
and additions.
Comptroller General of the United States review of burden-sharing
agreements and posture costs
The committee notes that as part of its three strategic
objectives listed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, the
Department of Defense (DOD) will continue to rebalance and
sustain its global posture. This will include continuing to
invest resources in the Asia-Pacific region in order to
preserve critical political, economic, and security interests.
At the forefront of this rebalancing will be the partnerships
with two of our most important allies, Japan and the Republic
of Korea (ROK). In addition, given DOD's deep and abiding
interests in maintaining and expanding European security and
prosperity and particularly in light of recent events in
eastern Europe, DOD will also continue to work with our long-
standing European allies to promote regional stability, as well
as to improve capacity, interoperability, and strategic access
for coalition operations. Most of these partnerships date back
over 50 years, allowing U.S. forces access to land and
facilities in host countries.
Host nation support, through burden-sharing agreements, has
been critical to helping offset the costs of stationing U.S.
forces in many countries. Burden-sharing arrangements, such as
Special Measures Agreements with Japan and the ROK, have
contributed billions of dollars to mitigate the costs
associated with a forward-based U.S. military presence,
including such costs as labor, utilities, and construction. Due
to rising costs associated with stationing forces overseas and
the security benefits that accrue to both the host nation and
the United States, these agreements play a pivotal role in
DOD's current and future strategic planning.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has completed
several studies on U.S. defense posture in the Asia-Pacific
region as well as in Europe. While these reports highlighted
areas for improvement in planning and data collection, DOD's
process and parameters for negotiating and monitoring burden-
sharing agreements with host nations, or similar host nation
support and payment agreements, are not clear to the committee.
As a result of the challenges faced by DOD associated with
Global Force Management and current fiscal uncertainties, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to analyze and report on the following:
(1) How does DOD estimate the costs of its overseas
presence and use this information to develop burden-
sharing agreements or similar host nation support and
payments;
(2) Does DOD calculate the percentage of current and
future costs host nation support is covering and how
does it determine what to include in that calculation;
(3) What is DOD's process for determining what is to
be included in burden-sharing agreements or similar
host nation support and payments; and
(4) To what extent is DOD monitoring the execution of
host nation support, including the support provided
under burden-sharing agreements?
(5) How does DOD account for and inform Congress of
host nation contributions?
(6) Any other matters the Comptroller General deems
appropriate to include as a result of its review.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees on the above questions by April 30, 2015, with a
report to follow by June 1, 2015.
Comptroller General of the United States review of the National Guard
Counterdrug Program
Since 1989, the National Guard has worked with law
enforcement agencies and community-based organizations to
perform interdiction and anti-drug activities. The National
Guard Counterdrug Program operates in 54 U.S. States and
territories with approximately 2,500 soldiers and airmen
supporting more than 5,000 agencies at the local, state, and
federal levels to prevent illicit drugs from being imported,
manufactured, and distributed. In fiscal year 2012, the
National Guard Counterdrug Program began implementing a threat-
based resource model to allocate funding to States and
territories based on performance metrics and the severity of
the narcotics threat. According to the National Guard Bureau,
the model aligns with Department of Defense priorities as
outlined by the National Security Strategy and Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats.
The committee is concerned that it has an incomplete
picture of the goals and activities of the National Guard
Counterdrug Program as well as how resources are being
expended. It is imperative that the National Guard Bureau have
data, metrics, and analyses to manage the program that are
reliable, clearly articulated, transparent, and reflect the
changing nature of narcotics trafficking activities. Moreover,
given the inter-agency nature of U.S. counterdrug activities,
it is critical that the National Guard Bureau cooperate and
share information associated with its planned activities with
relevant interagency partners, particularly the Office of
National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Agency.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
provide an independent assessment of the program including: (1)
The activities and resources associated with the National Guard
Counterdrug Program and the trends, if any, over time; (2) The
process used to identify, prioritize, and select activities for
funding and implementation; (3) The framework used to monitor
and evaluate the effectiveness of activities; and (4) Whether
the plans and activities of the National Guard program support
the efforts of interagency partners and align with broader U.S.
goals. The Comptroller General may include other areas in the
assessment as deemed appropriate if such inclusion would assist
in oversight of the program. The Comptroller General should
brief the committee by November 15, 2014, on the preliminary
results of the study, with a report to follow as agreed to with
the committee.
Detention of Third Country Nationals in Afghanistan
The Government of Afghanistan ordered the extra-judicial
release of 65 Afghan detainees on February 13, 2014, despite
extensive information and evidence from U.S. Forces-Afghanistan
(USFOR-A) that the detainees posed a continuing threat if
released. According to USFOR-A, the released detainees were
linked to wounding or killing 32 U.S. or coalition personnel
and 23 Afghan National Security Forces or civilians. The
Commander, USFOR-A, objected to these releases, on the basis
that they were in contradiction to the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) signed by the Afghan Minister of Defense
and the Commander, USFOR-A, on March 25, 2013, regarding the
transfer of Afghan detainees in U.S. law-of-armed-conflict
custody to the custody of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA). The agreed-upon process was
violated when the Afghan Review Board did not consider the
evidence submitted by USFOR-A or engage in an information
exchange prior to the detainees' release as set forth in the
MOU. The committee remains concerned that the GIRoA will seek
to release the 23 remaining dangerous Afghan detainees the
USFOR-A has contested, and calls on the GIRoA to adhere to the
procedures agreed to in the existing MOU.
The committee also notes that the detainees that the GIRoA
continues to hold have been determined to be Enduring Security
Threats (EST). The committee supports the continued detention
of ESTs, in accordance with the provisions of the existing MOU,
and believes that any change to the status of ESTs other than
as provided in the MOU should only occur as mutually agreed
between the GIRoA and USFOR-A.
The committee remains concerned about the disposition of
the detainees that remain under the control of USFOR-A, and
therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the
committee, by not later than June 30, 2014, and thereafter as
requested by the committee, on the disposition plan for third-
country nationals (TCN) currently being held by USFOR-A. The
briefing should include the U.S. Government's plan for the
continued detention, transfer, or release of TCNs under U.S.
control currently held in Afghanistan, the process for
reviewing the status of TCNs, and any plans for the prosecution
of TCNs.
National Guard Counterdrug Program
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
requests funding annually to support the National Guard
Counterdrug Program (CDP). The committee believes that the CDP
plays an important role in providing military-specific
capabilities and expertise resident within the National Guard
to support the counterdrug activities of federal, state, and
local authorities. This support includes the provision of
linguists, intelligence, transportation, logistics,
reconnaissance, training, education, and prevention outreach.
The committee notes that budgetary pressures have led DOD to
decrease the annual budget request for the CDP in recent years.
Further, the committee understands that these cuts have
caused a disruption or curtailment of CDP operations, including
the planned closure of the five regional counterdrug training
centers in fiscal year 2015. The committee encourages DOD to
continue its support for the CDP and to provide adequate
funding to ensure the sustainability of the program.
Additionally, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, to examine the CDP on an ongoing basis to ensure it
keeps pace with the evolving nature of illicit trafficking
enterprise.
Preparing for increased Arctic operations
The committee notes that the Arctic is an area of
increasing strategic and economic importance to the United
States. The opening of new maritime shipping lanes and
increased access to abundant deposits of natural resources,
such as oil and natural gas, will provide opportunities and
challenges to U.S. national interests. The committee commends
the Department of Defense (DOD) for increasing its focus on
this region and encourages DOD to continue to plan for
operating in what will likely become a more crowded and
potentially more contested region. The committee is also
interested in ensuring that DOD, in coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security, focuses on developing and
acquiring capabilities that will enable the United States to
operate effectively in the Arctic in the coming years. The
United States is an Arctic nation that stands to benefit from
increased access to that region, and it is critical that our
national security strategies and capabilities keep pace with
our growing interests, especially as other nations increase
their activity in the Arctic.
Transfer of aircraft to other departments for wildfire suppression and
other purposes
Section 1098 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) directed transfers of
Department of Defense (DOD) and U.S. Coast Guard aircraft to
other departments of the Federal Government for wildfire
suppression and other purposes.
The committee understands that discussions among the
agencies on implementing that direction have been collaborative
and productive. The committee knows that such transactions are
complex.
However, the committee has been informed that the Air Force
General Counsel has decided that the specific word ``transfer''
in Section 1098(a) requires the Coast Guard to convey title,
engineering services, and technical authority of the HC-130H to
the Air Force. The committee understands this would be a
cumbersome and paperwork-intensive process 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) before relinquishing the aircraft. Such an
interpretation was not the intention of the committee nor was
it the committee's intention to complicate the process of
implementing section 1098(a) that deals with HC-130H transfers.
The Air Force routinely conducts depot-level maintenance
and modifications of HC-130H aircraft on behalf of the Coast
Guard without having to convey title from the Coast Guard to
the Air Force. The interpretation of the Air Force General
Counsel could significantly delay implementation of 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 Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the U.S. Forest Service
briefed the committee on an execution plan in February 2014.
That plan included having the Air Force modify Coast Guard HC-
130H aircraft and provide firefighting-capable aircraft to the
Forest Service in the most expeditious manner. This plan did
not involve a transfer as interpreted by the Air Force General
Counsel. The committee supports that execution plan. To that
end, the committee directs the DOD General Counsel to review
the interpretation of the Air Force General Counsel and ensure
that the word ``transfer'' as used in section 1098(a) is used
consistent with the congressional intent not to require title
of HC-130H aircraft from the Coast Guard to the Air Force while
the Air Force executes this modification.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
Extension and modification of experimental program for scientific and
technical personnel (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical modifications to a special hiring authority used by
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and other
agencies to hire world-class technical experts to serve as
research and development program managers.
Modifications of biennial strategic workforce plan relating to senior
management, functional, and technical workforces of the
Department of Defense (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 115b of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to prepare a biennial strategic workforce
plan that addresses the shaping and improvement of the senior
management workforce of the Department of Defense and includes
an assessment of the senior functional and technical workforce
of the Department within the appropriate functional community.
The provision would also add a requirement that the strategic
workforce plan include an assessment of the workforce of the
Department comprised of highly qualified experts.
One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian
employees working overseas (sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as
most recently amended by section 1101 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to
extend through 2015 the authority of heads of executive
agencies to waive limitations on the aggregate of basic and
premium pay of employees who perform work in an overseas
location that is in the area of responsibility of the
Commander, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that
was formerly in CENTCOM but has been moved to an area of
responsibility of the Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in
support of a military operation or an operation in response to
a declared emergency.
Personnel authorities for civilian personnel for the United States
Cyber Command (sec. 1104)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that enhanced personnel authorities are
needed for hiring, compensating, and promoting civilian
personnel supporting U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), perhaps
modeled on the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System
(DCIPS) established in title 10 sections 1601 through 1607. The
provision also would require the Principal Cyber Advisor,
within 180 days of enactment, to provide recommendations to the
Secretary of Defense to improve the support provided by
CYBERCOM's executive agent, the Department of the Air Force, in
the area of civilian personnel, both through administrative
actions and legislation.
The committee notes that the DCIPS authorities available to
defense intelligence agencies and components provide special
hiring, compensation, and promotion authorities that enable
these agencies and components to compete effectively to recruit
and retain civilian employees with critical skills and
experience. Congress has also provided enhanced authorities to
manage specialized civilian personnel at the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency and the research laboratories of the
military services. CYBERCOM must compete directly with the
National Security Agency and the private sector for personnel
with technical cyber skills and is currently at a significant
disadvantage in terms of desirable positions, rates of pay, and
career advancement opportunities. The committee believes that
providing enhanced personnel management authorities for
CYBERCOM civilians is important and justified to ensure that
CYBERCOM can fulfill its missions.
Item of Special Interest
Assignment of Department of Defense civilian employees with cyber
skills
The committee recognizes the growth in the number of
Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employees supporting
critical and evolving cyber missions of the DOD. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to assess whether a program
that involves predictable assignments or details of DOD
civilian personnel with cyber skills to other military
departments or DOD civilian positions in U.S. Cyber Command and
Cyber Mission Forces units would enhance the professional
development and career progression of the civilian employees.
The committee directs the Secretary to report the results of
this assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than January
31, 2015.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Modification of Department of Defense authority for humanitarian
stockpiled conventional munitions assistance programs (sec.
1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
definitions contained in section 407 of title 10, United States
Code, regarding humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled
conventional munitions assistance.
Codification of recurring limitations on the use of funds for
assistance for units of foreign security forces that have
committed a gross violation of human rights (sec. 1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 134 of title 10, United States Code, to include a
limitation on the use of funds for training, equipment, or
other assistance for the members of a unit of a foreign
security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible
information that such unit has committed a gross violation of
human rights. In addition to a waiver for extraordinary
circumstances, the provision would authorize the Secretary of
Defense to provide training, equipment, or other assistance for
disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, or national security
emergencies, as well as to conduct human rights training.
Should an exception or waiver be exercised by the Secretary,
the provision requires the Secretary to submit a notification
to the congressional defense committees within 15 days. In
carrying out this provision, the Secretary of Defense is
required to consult regularly with the Secretary of State.
The committee notes that since fiscal year 1999, the annual
Department of Defense appropriations bills have included a
provision with a similar limitation and that in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-86), this provision was expanded beyond training to
include the provision of equipment and other assistance. The
committee supports the intent of this annual appropriation
limitation and, as such, is incorporating it into title 10,
United States Code, to ensure that action on this matter is not
needed annually in the future.
Codification and enhancement of authority to build the capacity of
foreign security forces (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would codify in
title 10, United States Code, the authority currently under
section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) as amended (the ``section
1206 authority''), for the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
program to train-and-equip foreign security forces to build
their capacity to conduct counterterrorism operations. The
provision would also modify the authority to provide for
training and equipping foreign military forces to participate
in or support allied or coalition military or stability
operations that benefit U.S. national security interests, and
raise the limitation on the amount that can be used for such
purposes from $100.0 million to $150.0 million of the total
amount of funds authorized for the train-and-equip program
under this section. The provision would include a limitation on
the amount of funds authorized for the train-and-equip program
of $350.0 million. An additional $150.0 million may be used to
fund activities under the train-and-equip program authority if
such additional funds are transferred for these purposes by the
Department of Defense (DOD) under established reprogramming
procedures. The total amount authorized, if the reprogramming
option were to be fully executed, would be $500.0 million.
In addition, the provision would codify the authority for
the Secretary of Defense to use funds under the section 1206
authority to conduct assessments of the effectiveness of the
program in building the operational capability and performance
of recipient units. The provision would require annual reports
through 2025 summarizing the findings of such assessments. The
committee supports the DOD's efforts to develop an assessment
methodology for evaluating train-and-equip programs, which the
committee understands is currently set out in the Section 1206
Assessment Handbook.
The provision would also require the Comptroller General to
conduct, through 2025, annual audits of train-and-equip
programs, as selected by the Comptroller General in
consultation with the appropriate congressional committees, to
provide an outside assessment of the effectiveness of these
programs in meeting their objectives.
The committee believes that, since its inception in fiscal
year 2006, the global train-and-equip program has developed
into a critical tool for DOD leaders and military commanders to
build the capacity of partner nations' forces to address
emerging and urgent threats, including to counter the threat of
terrorism as this threat has proliferated and diversified. The
maturity and proven track record of this program, closely
coordinated between the DOD and the Department of State, is a
primary motivation for codifying the section 1206 authority.
The committee emphasizes that the focus of the section 1206
authority on addressing emerging and urgent threats has been
fundamental to its successful implementation and urges the DOD
to continue to prioritize programs on this basis, including to
counter the threat posed by terrorist groups in North Africa,
the Arabian peninsula, and the Levant.
The committee notes that during the last several years of
coalition operations in Afghanistan, section 1206 authority has
served as a valuable force multiplier by building the capacity
of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members and other
coalition partners to participate in stability operations and
special operations in Afghanistan--directly contributing to the
furtherance of U.S. national security objectives. Even as
combat operations in Afghanistan are coming to an end, there
remains a significant requirement for interoperability with
allied and coalition military forces, including special
operations forces. The committee encourages the DOD to continue
capacity-building efforts under section 1206 authority with
NATO members and coalition partners in light of the security
concerns in Eastern Europe and Ukraine.
Training of security forces and associated ministries of foreign
countries to promote respect for the rule of law and human
rights (sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to conduct human rights training of
security forces and associated ministries of foreign countries.
The provision would require that the activities conducted
pursuant to this section have the concurrence of the Secretary
of State and the provision would define the activities
considered to be human rights training.
Modification and extension of Global Security Contingency Fund
authority (sec. 1205)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2017 the authority under section 1207 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81), as amended, for the Global Security
Contingency Fund (GSCF). The provision would also clarify the
types of assistance that could be provided under the fund and
the sources of Department of Defense funding that could be
transferred to support the GSCF.
The committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine and the urgent security assistance needs of Ukraine
and other countries at risk in Eastern Europe. The committee
notes that at the time the GSCF was presented to the committee
as a legislative proposal, the fund was intended in large part
to address the challenges the U.S. Government faced in
identifying readily-available sources of security assistance
funding following the Georgian-Russian conflict in August 2008.
The committee encourages the administration to consider making
full use of the GSCF as part of a security assistance program
for Ukraine and Eastern European countries.
At the same time, the committee has concerns about the poor
track record with regard to the timely implementation of GSCF
projects to date. While intended to provide a flexible
authority, GSCF execution has suffered due to significant
delays in developing the interagency procedures for selecting
and implementing projects under the program. As a result, only
recently have a number of GSCF projects begun to be
implemented. In addition, the committee is concerned that
certain GSCF projects, such as the effort to build the capacity
of border security forces in Libya, are already at risk of
being suspended, partially due to planning shortcomings. The
committee strongly urges the Departments of State and Defense
to quickly take the steps necessary to address these
shortcomings and to ensure that these mistakes are not
repeated.
Use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend certain
military equipment to certain foreign forces for personnel
protection and survivability (sec. 1206)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority under section 1202 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364), as amended, to use the procedures under
acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend certain
personnel protection equipment to foreign military forces
participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan. The
provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to
waive, on a case-by-case basis, the requirement that the United
States be reimbursed for the cost of such equipment if the
equipment is lost in combat during coalition operations.
Cross servicing agreements for loan of personnel protection and
personnel survivability equipment in coalition operations (sec.
1207)
The committee recommends a provision that would codify in
title 10, United States Code, an authority for the Secretary of
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to
enter into arrangements under acquisition and cross-servicing
agreements (ACSA) to loan personnel protection and personnel
survivability equipment to foreign military forces for their
use in coalition operations with the United States as part of a
contingency operation or a peacekeeping operation under the
United Nations Charter or another international agreement. The
provision would include a waiver of the requirement to
reimburse the United States for the loss of such equipment if
the loss occurred in combat during operations for which the
equipment was loaned.
The committee recognizes the importance to coalition
operations in Afghanistan of the ability of the United States
to loan personnel protection and personnel survivability
equipment to coalition partners under the temporary authority
of section 1202 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
The Department of Defense (DOD) has interpreted this authority
narrowly, consistent with the memorandum titled, ``Approval and
Delegation of Authority to Transfer Personnel Protection
Equipment and Other Personnel Survivability Significant
Military Equipment (SME) to Certain Foreign Forces Under
Existing Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSAs),''
issued by then Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter on
November 25, 2011. The committee encourages DOD to take a
similar approach to implementing any program to loan equipment
under ACSA under the authority of this section.
Extension and modification of authority for support of special
operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1208)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism
contained in section 1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), as amended, through fiscal year 2016, and increase the
annual cap on the authority from $50.0 million to $60.0
million.
The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
testified on March 11, 2014, that ``Section 1208 authority has
been absolutely critical to our current and future efforts
against al-Qa'ida and organizations of their ilk. It provides
us the ability to apply a modest portion of our annual budget
to deliver critical enablers to select irregular forces, groups
or individuals, directly involved in the terrorism fight. This
authority uniquely provides SOCOM with access and skill sets in
locations where we may not otherwise be able to operate,
subject to the Secretary of Defense granting specific
operational authority. The strategic value of enabling and
leveraging such forces to carry out tactical operations
alongside, or even in lieu of, U.S. forces cannot be
overstated.''
The committee supports the use of section 1208 authority by
U.S. Special Operations Forces to enhance operations in support
of U.S. counterterrorism objectives. The committee also
encourages continued vigilance by the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and
SOCOM in ensuring that the authority is used to support
operational requirements vice long-term capacity-building
efforts with partner-nation security forces.
Assistance to foster a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Syria
(sec. 1209)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to provide equipment, supplies,
training, and defense services to assist the vetted elements of
the Syrian opposition for the purposes of: (1) Defending the
Syrian people from the attacks of the Syrian regime; (2)
Protecting the United States, our friends and allies, and the
Syrian people from terrorist elements; and (3) Promoting the
conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in
Syria. The provision would also establish requirements for an
element of the Syrian opposition to be deemed vetted, permit
the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to third
countries for purposes of the provision of training and
equipment, and the authority to accept contributions from other
nations. The Secretary of State's concurrence would be required
to conduct activities under this authority.
The committee notes that the authority granted in this
provision does not authorize the use of the United States Armed
Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat
operations.
Further, should a determination be made to use this
authority, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the congressional defense committees on the Department's
execution plan, including but not limited to: (1) the process
established to vet prospective Syrian opposition participants;
(2) the role the United States Armed Forces will play in the
execution of the plan; and (3) methods for ensuring the
accountability of lethal equipment intended to be transferred
to the Syrian opposition. Such briefing should be provided no
less than 30 days before plan execution.
Given the importance and breadth of issues associated with
U.S. activities involving the situation in Syria, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to make available to the
intelligence committees information related to the support
provided under this authority.
Limitations on security assistance for the Government of Burma (sec.
1210)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit
security assistance funding for the Government of Burma unless
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, certifies that the Government of Burma is taking steps
toward implementing human rights reform, terminating military
relations with North Korea, and implementing other steps toward
broader military reform. The certification would also require
that the Burma military is adhering to ceasefire agreements and
demonstrating increased transparency and accountability. The
provision would provide an exception to the above limitation to
allow for security assistance funding for the Government of
Burma for human rights and disaster relief training, including
on issues such as the law of armed conflict, English-language
training, regional norms of security assistance, humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief (HADR), as well as observation
of HADR military exercises.
The provision would also require an annual report on, among
other issues, the Burma Government's strategy for security
sector reform, U.S. strategy and objectives for the military-
to-military relationship between the United States and Burma,
and a description and assessment of the record of the Burma
military with respect to the implementation of human rights
reforms. It would also include reporting on the military-to-
military activities between the United States and Burma that
have already occurred and that are planned to occur in the
future.
The committee expects the Department of Defense (DOD) will
begin human rights, humanitarian, and disaster relief training
and education for the Burma military, as laid out in section
(a)(2) of the provision, in fiscal year 2015, under a DOD
program, such as the Defense Institute of International Legal
Studies or the Defense Institute Reform Initiative.
Biennial report on programs carried out by the Department of Defense to
provide training, equipment, or other assistance or
reimbursement to foreign security forces (sec. 1211)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
biennial report to Congress in fiscal years 2016, 2018, and
2020 describing the programs conducted by the Department of
Defense (DOD) during the previous 2 fiscal years to provide
training, equipment, or other security assistance or
reimbursement to foreign security forces. The information would
be provided on a country-by-country basis. The provision would
supersede the reporting requirement under section 1209 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181), which would be repealed under this section.
Sense of the Senate on multilateral humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief exercises (sec. 1212)
The committee recommends a provision that expresses the
sense of the Senate that:
(1) Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
(HADR) multilateral exercises provide nations in the
Asia-Pacific region with the training, capacity
building, and coordination expertise necessary to
respond to natural disasters; and
(2) Both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan
should be afforded the opportunity to attend future
multilateral (HADR) exercises to increase their
capacity to effectively respond to these types of
disasters.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq
Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 1221)
The committee recommends a provision that would make up to
$20.0 million available during fiscal year 2015 for the
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Afghanistan
under section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) as amended. The
provision would also reduce the aggregate amount of CERP funds
that could be spent on any one project to $2.0 million.
The committee notes that a primary purpose of CERP has been
to enhance force protection by winning the support of local
communities in areas where U.S. combat forces are deployed.
With the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the end of
major combat operations after December 2014, the committee
believes that reductions in CERP funding should continue to the
minimum level commensurate with the train, advise, and assist
mission anticipated for U.S. forces in 2015 and beyond.
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense
services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan
(sec. 1222)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2015, the authority under section 1222 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239) to transfer defense articles being drawn
down in Afghanistan, and to provide defense services in
connection with such transfers, to the military and security
forces of Afghanistan. The provision would also extend through
fiscal year 2015 the exemption for excess defense articles
(EDA) transferred from Department of Defense (DOD) stocks in
Afghanistan from counting toward the annual limitation on the
aggregate value of EDA transferred under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act (Public Law 87-195).
The committee understands that DOD has determined that
several hundred Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles
in Afghanistan have been determined to be excess to U.S.
defense needs and therefore will either be transferred as
excess defense articles to foreign security forces or
destroyed. The committee believes that these MRAP vehicles
could provide the Afghan National Security Forces with valuable
mobility and personnel protection and urges the Secretary of
Defense to consider transferring these excess MRAP vehicles
under the authority provided in this section.
One-year extension of authority to use funds for reintegration
activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1223)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2015 the authority under section 1216 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383) as amended, to use Department of Defense
funds to support the reintegration of former insurgent fighters
into Afghanistan society. The provision would authorize the use
of up to $15.0 million in fiscal year 2015 for these purposes.
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain
coalition nations for support provided to United States
military operations (sec. 1224)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2015 the authority to make Coalition Support Funds
(CSF) payments under section 1233 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as
amended. Under this section, the Secretary of Defense may use
CSF to reimburse key nations for support provided to or in
connection with U.S. military operations in Afghanistan or to
use such funds to provide specialized training or loan
specialized equipment to key nations participating in coalition
operations in Afghanistan. The provision would limit the total
amount of CSF that could be provided in fiscal year 2015 to
$1.2 billion. Of this amount, the amount of CSF that could be
provided to Pakistan would be limited to $900.0 million. The
provision would also extend for 1 year certain notification and
certification requirements relating to CSF payments to
Pakistan. The provision would also restrict the Secretary of
Defense from waiving the certification requirements relating to
$300.0 million of the $900.0 million in CSF authorized for
Pakistan unless the Secretary certifies that Pakistan has
undertaken military operations in North Waziristan that have
significantly disrupted the safe haven and freedom of movement
of the Haqqani network in Pakistan.
The committee notes that CSF payments are directly tied to
support provided to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and
should not be considered to be foreign assistance by another
name. With the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the
end of major combat operations there, the committee expects
that CSF payments by the Department of Defense will decline
accordingly.
One-year extension of logistical support for coalition forces
supporting certain United States military operations (sec.
1225)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2015 the authority to provide logistical support to
coalition forces under section 1234 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as
amended.
Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and projects of the
Department of Defense in Afghanistan that cannot be safely
accessed by United States Government personnel (sec. 1226)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense (DOD) funds
for DOD reconstruction or other infrastructure projects in
Afghanistan if those projects are not safely accessible by U.S.
Government personnel with authority to conduct oversight. The
provision would include a waiver if certain specified
conditions can be met.
Semiannual report on enhancing the strategic partnership between the
United States and Afghanistan (sec. 1227)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
semiannual report on building and sustaining the Afghan
National Security Forces (ANSF) through October 2017. The
provision would also repeal the reporting requirement under
section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
Report on bilateral security cooperation with Pakistan (sec. 1228)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to submit semi-annually a detailed report to the
appropriate committees of Congress on the nature and extent of
bilateral security cooperation between the United States and
Pakistan. The report would include information on the
cooperation of the Government of Pakistan in the search for
Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured in Afghanistan in
June 2009. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
make available to the intelligence committees a copy of the
report required under this section.
Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance on former United States
training ranges in Afghanistan (sec. 1229)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to use up to $125.0 million of
Department of Defense funds in each of fiscal years 2015 and
2016 to conduct surface clearance of unexploded ordnance at
closed training ranges used by the U.S. Armed Forces in
Afghanistan.
The committee notes that as U.S. Forces have drawn down in
Afghanistan, dozens of firing ranges operated and managed by
U.S. Forces have been closed. While strongly supportive of
efforts to clear unexploded ordnance from these ranges, the
committee notes that the inclusion of this authority does not
create a U.S. legal obligation regarding the disposition of
unexploded ordnance at these ranges or ranges transferred to
Government of Afghanistan control and is not intended to serve
as a precedent with respect to ranges in other countries or
ranges transferred to Government of Afghanistan control.
Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (sec. 1230)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for
1 fiscal year, and modify the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa
program.
Extension and modification of authority to support operations and
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec.
1231)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2015 the authority under section 1215 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81), as amended, for the Secretary of Defense
to support on a transitional basis the operations and
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-
I). The provision would authorize the use of up to $30.0
million in fiscal year 2015 to support OSC-I operations and
activities.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the additional
authority for the OSC-I to conduct non-operational training of
Iraqi Ministry of Defense (MOD) and Counter Terrorism Service
(CTS) personnel in an institutional environment to address
capability gaps and integrate certain processes within the
Iraqi security forces. In this regard, the committee
understands the term ``non-operational'' to mean training that
is conducted while not engaged in combat operations, and is not
intended to preclude training of Iraqi security forces on
operational tactics, techniques, or procedures within an
institutional setting such as a MOD or a CTS training facility.
In addition, the committee believes that nothing in this
provision restricts the training of MOD or CTS personnel from
being conducted only at those facilities owned or controlled by
their respective ministry or service, and therefore nothing in
this provision would preclude CTS personnel from training at
MOD training facilities, and vice versa.
Subtitle C--Reports
Report on impact of end of major combat operations in Afghanistan on
authority to use military force (sec. 1241)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Attorney General, to submit a report to the
appropriate committees of Congress assessing the impact, if
any, of the end of major combat operations in Afghanistan on
the authority of U.S. Armed Forces to use military force
against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other associated forces
under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force or
any other available legal authority.
United States strategy for enhancing security and stability in Europe
(sec. 1242)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
strategy for enhancing security and stability in Europe. The
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review of the contingency plans and force posture,
readiness, and responsiveness of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) forces in Europe to ensure that such forces
are appropriate to meet obligations under the North Atlantic
Treaty, particularly the collective defense commitment of
Article V. In addition, the provision would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to develop plans for reassuring our
NATO allies and for enhancing U.S. security cooperation with
appropriate countries participating in the NATO Partnership for
Peace program, specifically those countries that are at risk or
may become at risk of intimidation or threats to their
sovereignty or territorial integrity from neighboring
countries. Further, the provision would prohibit the use of DOD
funds authorized by this Act to conduct bilateral security
cooperation activities between the United States and Russia
until Russia has ended its aggressive activities threatening
the security of Ukraine and allied nations. The Secretary of
Defense would be authorized to waive the applicability of this
prohibition, if necessary, for critical U.S. national security
needs.
Report on military and security developments involving the Russian
Federation (sec. 1243)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
detailed report on Russia's security and military strategy. The
report would include all the elements of the report on Russia
required under section 1254 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) and
add certain specified reporting requirements. The committee
remains concerned about Russia's annexation and occupation of
Crimea and the effect of Russian actions on the security and
stability of Europe and Eurasia. In reporting on the force
structure of the Russian military, the committee expects the
report to include a description of Russian military forces
stationed outside of Russia, Russian bases outside of Russia,
and a breakout of forces stationed in Kaliningrad.
The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives an interim briefing by December 31,
2014, to update the information provided in the report required
by June 1, 2014, under section 1254 of Public Law 113-66, as
well as progress on assessments of the additional items
required in the expanded and modified report under this
section.
Modification of matters for discussion in annual reports of United
States-China Economic and Security Review Commission (sec.
1244)
The committee recommends a provision that would revise and
update the mandate of the United States-China Economic and
Security Review Commission. The Commission's mandate has not
been updated since the Commission was created in 2001. The
updated mandate would include additional areas of concern for
the committee including the People's Republic of China's (PRC)
military plans, strategy and doctrine, strategic economic and
security implications of its cyber operations, as well as the
effects of energy and natural resource needs of the country on
the foreign and military policies of the PRC.
The committee emphasizes that the Commission and its
members should adhere to the guidance in the Commission's
charter. In particular, the expertise of members of the
Commission on matters relevant to the Commission's mandate is
essential to their ability to appropriately advise Congress.
Members of the Commission must possess a working knowledge of
national security matters and U.S.-China relations. The
committee urges members of the Commission to cultivate and
maintain expertise in such matters on an annual basis during
their terms in order to fully and effectively comply with the
charter.
Further, the Commission is required to include a full
discussion of issues listed in its mandate in each annual
report. The committee urges the Commission to address all areas
outlined as priorities in the Commission's revised mandate,
including matters on which members of the Commission have
diverse or divided viewpoints.
Report on maritime security strategy and annual briefing on military to
military engagement with the People's Republic of China (sec.
1245)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to provide the congressional defense committees a
report with a classified annex, if necessary, that would
outline the Department of Defense (DOD) strategy with regard to
maritime security in the South China and East China seas,
including: (1) A description of planned bilateral or regional
maritime capacity building initiatives; (2) An assessment of
anti-access/area denial capabilities of the People's Republic
of China (PRC); (3) An assessment of how the PRC has changed
the status quo with regard to competing maritime claims in
those seas; (4) An analysis and assessment of the benefits of
the military-to-military engagement between the United States
and the PRC and potential impact on tensions in the East and
South China Seas; and (5) A description of the naval
modernization efforts of the PRC and the implications of those
efforts for U.S. strategy for maritime security in the region.
The provision would also require that the DOD provide the
congressional defense committees a yearly briefing on the
military-to-military engagements between the United States and
the PRC, including an assessment of the success of such
engagements in meeting the objectives of the Commander of
United States Pacific Command for such engagements.
Report on military assistance to Ukraine (sec. 1246)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit semi-annually to the
congressional defense committees a report on U.S. military
assistance to Ukraine. The requirement to submit this report
would terminate on January 31, 2017.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Treatment of Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan under the Immigration and Nationality Act (sec. 1261)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security or the Secretary of Homeland Security in
consultation with the Secretary of State to exclude the
Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
from the definition of a Tier III terrorist organization under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).
Notification on potentially significant arms control noncompliance
(sec. 1262)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to notify the President if the Secretary
has substantial reason to believe that there is a potentially
significant case of foreign noncompliance with an arms control
treaty to which the United States is a party. It would also
require the Secretary to submit notice to the Senate committees
on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence not
later than 30 days after such notification to the President.
Enhanced authority for provision of support to foreign military liaison
officers of foreign countries while assigned to the Department
of Defense (sec. 1263)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, to provide the
Department of Defense the authority to continue to benefit from
the contributions of liaison officers from other countries
beyond the conclusion of current named military operations in
Afghanistan.
The committee believes that this authority will enable the
Secretary of Defense to better facilitate partner nation
participation to assist the United States in a wider range of
partnerships, cooperative ventures, and burden-sharing efforts.
It would also allow like-minded countries to better plan and
utilize resources when addressing common threats and it would
enhance interoperability and working relationships between the
United States and foreign militaries.
One-year extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted
recovery capabilities (sec. 1264)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop,
and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities
for 1 additional year.
Inter-European Air Forces Academy (sec. 1265)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to operate the Inter-European
Air Forces Academy for the purpose of military education and
training to military personnel of North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) members and countries participating in the
NATO Partnership for Peace program. The provision would also
authorize the use of funds available for Air Force operations
and maintenance to pay certain costs associated with the
program. The authority would expire on September 30, 2017.
The committee understands that the intention of the
Department of Defense in establishing the program and
curriculum of the Inter-European Air Forces Academy is to train
non-commissioned officers and company grade officers of allied
and partnered air forces, primarily from Eastern Europe, to
help them overcome the legacy of overly centralized command and
control structures of these air forces instilled during the
Cold War. The program would be intended to train these
personnel to delegate effectively within a decentralized
organization and to improve the interoperability and
effectiveness for future coalition operations.
Extension of limitations on providing certain missile defense
information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1266)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
year the limitations in section 1246(c) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) on
providing certain missile defense information to the Russian
Federation.
Prohibition on direct or indirect use of funds to enter into contracts
or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1267)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense (DOD) from contracting with the
Russian state corporation Rosoboronexport or any of its
subsidiaries or affiliates. The provision would also require
DOD to immediately terminate all contracts with
Rosoboronexport. In addition, the provision requires a report
submitted to the congressional defense committees on the
activities of Rosoboronexport.
Items of Special Interest
Annual report on the military power of Iran
The committee remains concerned about the regional and
international threat posed by Iran's nuclear and ballistic
missile development programs. As Admiral Cecil Haney, Commander
of U.S. Strategic Command, stated in testimony to the committee
on February 27, 2014, ``[i]f Iran were to make progress toward
developing an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] capable
of delivering a nuclear or conventional warhead and with
sufficient range to reach CONUS [continental United States], I
would consider that a threat to the United States.'' The
committee agrees strongly with Admiral Haney and the committee
remains interested in an update from the Secretary of Defense
on Iran's military development activities in this regard.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is
required to submit, on an annual basis, a report on the
military power of Iran (section 1245 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, as amended (Public Law
110-84)). The committee notes that previous versions of this
report have provided useful information on Iran's military
power, including its ballistic missile capabilities and
developments. The report is due on January 30 of each year.
However, the committee notes that, as of May 2014, the report
covering 2013 has not been provided to Congress. The committee
expects the prompt delivery of this report each year.
Given this delay, upon the delivery of the report covering
2013, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
to Congress a briefing on the report which--in addition to
covering information from 2013--should also provide an update
from the report's information cut-off date to the present on
any developments within Iran's ballistic missile program that
would, at a minimum, contain the information required in
section 1245(b)(4).
Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of
Defense security assistance to the Republic of Yemen
The committee notes that Yemen continues to be threatened
by terrorist and regional insurgent violence and racked by
systemic socio-economic and environmental problems. Further,
the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
remains a serious national security threat to the United
States. The U.S. Government has invested more than $1 billion
in assistance since 2007 in support of U.S. strategic goals for
Yemen.
While the Government Accountability Office reported in
March 2013 that some progress has been made toward supporting
the Government of Yemen in addressing these difficulties,
significant challenges remain regarding Yemen's future,
underscoring the possibility that Yemen will need further U.S.
assistance as it navigates a demanding transition process.
The committee remains concerned about U.S. security
assistance programs (primarily so-called sections 1203, 1206,
and 1207(n) assistance programs) and the long-term viability of
the U.S. security strategy for Yemen that these programs seek
to support. As such, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to update the March 2013 report on
U.S. Assistance to Yemen (GAO-13-310). The committee is
particularly interested in: (1) Receiving an update on the
status of Department of Defense efforts to deliver security-
related equipment on a timely basis and conduct the associated
training within the time period permitted in the underlying
provision of public law; (2) An analysis of the maintenance
support programs for the Yemeni security forces on the U.S.
provided equipment, including--but not limited to--field
service representatives or direct training of the Yemeni
security force; (3) An assessment of the cohesiveness and
synergy of the collective programs and equipment provided under
security assistance programs since 2008; and (4) Other matters
the Comptroller General determines appropriate in the conduct
of the review. The committee directs that the Comptroller
General brief the congressional defense committees on its
initial findings no later than the end of this calendar year,
and that a final report be issued no later than March 31, 2015.
Maritime security in West Africa
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (USD/P), in consultation with the Commander of United
States Africa Command, to develop a framework for U.S. maritime
security assistance and cooperation in the Gulf of Guinea. Such
framework shall include the following for each of the principal
maritime nations in the Gulf of Guinea and for the region as a
whole:
(1) An assessment of where there are shortfalls
within national and regional capabilities to reduce and
prevent current threats and illegal activities
including piracy, maritime oil theft, illegal fishing,
illegal trafficking of humans, narcotics, weapons and
commodities, and such other destabilizing activities
that may disrupt peaceful maritime governance;
(2) An assessment of the current and expected
contributions of partner nations, international
organizations, non-governmental organizations, and
interagency efforts to reduce the shortfalls identified
in paragraph (1) and shall include how these efforts
can be synchronized to avoid duplication of effort;
(3) Development and evaluation of Department of
Defense (DOD) alternatives to enhance the maritime
security capabilities of the Gulf of Guinea states and
region through prioritization of targeted security
assistance efforts; and
(4) Development and evaluation of options for the
DOD, in partnership with the Gulf of Guinea states, to
combat official corruption facilitating piracy and
other illegal activity and to enable host nation law
enforcement actions against piracy and transnational
criminal networks and their support infrastructure.
The USD/P shall submit the report to the congressional
defense committees and the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations and the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign
Affairs not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act.
Further, the committee directs that the report include
recommendations for action by the Department of the Navy to
enhance maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea.
Nigeria and the threat posed by Boko Haram
The committee has watched with great concern as Boko Haram,
which the Department of State designated as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization in 2013 following a review of available
intelligence directed by the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), has grown in
strength, size, capability, lethal capacity, and geographic
reach over the last few years, and as the Nigerian Government
has struggled to develop effective policies to combat Boko
Haram.
Boko Haram's brutal tactics have included dozens of violent
terrorist attacks against both the Nigerian Government and
civilian targets such as civil society leaders, moderate
religious leaders, journalists, health workers involved in
vaccination campaigns, teachers, and students attending secular
schools, including the nearly 300 young girls abducted in
north-eastern Nigeria earlier this year. Boko Haram has
achieved success by advancing a violent extremist ideology
while tapping into grievances regarding governance, corruption,
and underdevelopment in northern Nigeria.
Boko Haram increasingly presents a direct threat to the
Government of Nigeria and to stability in northern Nigeria.
Moreover, its growth has a direct bearing on U.S. national
security interests in the region, given its commitment to
terrorist methods, ties with transnational terrorist groups
such as Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM),
and reported involvement in transnational organized crime
activities such as illicit trafficking in narcotics, arms, and
wildlife.
In response to Boko Haram's growing threat, the Government
of Nigeria declared a state of emergency in several northern
states in May 2013 and has since increased its military and
police operations against Boko Haram. However, these operations
have often been heavy-handed, raising human rights concerns as
well as fears that the Government of Nigeria may be driving
more local residents to support Boko Haram or deterring them
from cooperating with law enforcement.
Moreover, the Government of Nigeria has missed
opportunities to partner with the international community to
improve the effectiveness of its response, and has failed to
address underlying grievances that enhance Boko Haram's appeal
in the region. As a recent International Crisis Group Report
noted, ``Unless the federal and state governments, and the
region, develop and implement comprehensive plans to tackle not
only insecurity but also the injustices that drive much of the
troubles, Boko Haram, or groups like it, will continue to
destabilise large parts of the country.''
The committee recognizes Nigeria as an important partner to
the United States but is concerned that deficiencies in the
Government of Nigeria's current approach to confronting Boko
Haram is undermining its ability to ensure the security of the
Nigerian people. While the Department of Defense should
continue bilateral counterterrorism efforts and its
participation in the inter-agency efforts relating to the
captured young girls, the committee believes broader
cooperation with the Nigerian Government should be considered
carefully in the context of the Nigerian Government's progress
in addressing underlying grievances, discontinuing heavy-handed
security tactics, and expanding political and economic
opportunity in northern Nigeria.
Northeast Asian intelligence threats
The committee understands that U.S. military facilities,
U.S. military technology, and Department of Defense (DOD)
personnel in Japan are strategic targets for the intelligence
and military intelligence agencies of regional adversaries and
competitors in Northeast Asia. The committee notes that the
Japanese National Diet's approval of the Secrets Protection Act
of 2013 provides a legal framework to help protect the
Government of Japan (GOJ) and U.S. classified national security
data. The committee encourages DOD and the GOJ to continue
their collaborative efforts to thwart intelligence threats from
regional adversaries and competitors.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency to provide a classified briefing to
the congressional defense and intelligence committees, no later
than October 1, 2014, on the intelligence threat to U.S.
military facilities and personnel in Japan. This briefing shall
include discussion of U.S. cooperation with the GOJ to counter
regional intelligence threats, as well as an update on the
GOJ's implementation of the Secrets Protection Act of 2013.
Plans for bases in Afghanistan
The committee notes that the administration is still in
negotiations with the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan on a Bilateral Security Agreement, which would
establish missions and set the number of U.S. military forces
to remain in Afghanistan beyond December 2014. As such, the
administration has not yet provided a budget request or
justification to the committee on supplemental funding required
to support overseas contingency operations.
If the administration decides to station U.S. military
forces in Afghanistan, those forces will need facilities and
supporting infrastructure that is safe and secure and enables
efficient mission accomplishment. The committee expects the
Department of Defense to include in future budget requests the
plans and investments required to ensure adequate facilities
and infrastructure for the expected duration of the post-2014
mission.
Support of foreign forces participating in operations against the
Lord's Resistance Army
The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has wreaked havoc upon
millions for more than 2 decades throughout central Africa. The
LRA's atrocities have included murder, rape, and the abduction
of children to serve as child soldiers. In 2009, Congress
passed, and the President signed into law, the Lord's
Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act
(Public Law 111-172), which outlined U.S. policy objectives
focused on eliminating the threat posed by the LRA and its
leader, Joseph Kony. In subsequent years, Congress has provided
supporting legislative authorities and associated funding for
U.S. military assistance, known as Operation Observant Compass,
to regional partners combating the LRA, most recently in
section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
The committee remains strongly supportive of Operation
Observant Compass and related assistance to the Africa Union
Regional Task Force and other regional partners, including the
deployment of U.S. military advisors and equipment. This
support has enabled notable progress, including the removal of
key LRA commanders from the battlefield and has contributed to
increased defections, which the Department of State estimates
has reduced the number of LRA fighters to approximately 200
from nearly 1,000 6 years ago.
However, the committee believes that continued U.S.
support, specifically additional enablers and actionable
intelligence, is required to increase the effectiveness of our
regional partners in eliminating the threat posed by Joseph
Kony and the LRA to civilian populations. As such, the
committee urges the Department of Defense to continue its
assistance, specifically the provision of key enabling support,
such as mobility and targeted intelligence collection and
analysis resources.
United States-India Defense Security Cooperation
The committee supports the continued and growing bilateral
security relationship between the United States and India,
which includes the expansion of defense trade. Defense trade
with India supports both countries and highlights the
significance of U.S.-India cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
region. The objective of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
Defense Trade Initiative (DTI) with India is to nurture
increased U.S. defense exports to India. The committee notes
that DTI has had mixed results, and encourages the DOD to
continue its efforts to streamline business processes to make
U.S.-India defense trade and collaboration simpler, responsive,
and effective.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with other departments and agencies,
as appropriate, to provide the congressional defense and
foreign affairs committees a classified briefing, no later than
October 1, 2014, on the technologies that are currently being
considered or may be considered for export to India, including
pending or completed reforms of export controls to facilitate
DTI.
United States Strategy on the African Union Mission in Somalia
Since 2007, the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM)
has been the primary point of engagement for U.S. policy in
Somalia. The United States has been the single largest
bilateral contributor to financing AMISOM and has provided
significant logistical, technical, and political support to
AMISOM operations. Additionally, the U.S. Government has
provided substantial support to AMISOM contributors through
various security assistance programs, among other means. AMISOM
has proven highly successful in helping the United States
achieve its foremost national security objective in Somalia of
disrupting and dismantling al Shabaab in order to prevent the
planning and execution of international terrorist attacks.
However, as the situation in Somalia has been transformed
by the security gains against al Shabaab and the establishment
of a permanent national government, the committee is concerned
that strategy informing U.S. policy with regard to AMISOM
specifically and Somalia more broadly has not kept pace with
the evolving security and governance landscape. There appears
to be no coherent long-term strategy or timeline for
transitioning the AMISOM mission or associated U.S. support;
moreover, a stagnant U.S. policy towards Somalia that continues
to be centered upon AMISOM carries a number of risks both for
the future of Somalia and for broader U.S. national security
objectives in the region.
The committee is concerned that an open-ended AMISOM
mission without a clearly articulated transition strategy could
crystallize the current status quo that while representing
progress from past conditions, is not an acceptable end-state.
Accepting the status quo as an end state would mean a long-term
dependence by the Somali Federal Government (SFG) on AMISOM to
fulfill its security needs; a SFG that is unable or unmotivated
to extend its reach beyond Mogadishu; an overwhelming
dependence by the SFG on foreign assistance; the strengthening
or institutionalization of clan-based militias outside of
Mogadishu; and lack of progress toward necessary constitutional
and governmental reform. The committee notes that there already
appears to be a relative paralysis with regard to achieving
identified political milestones, including progressing toward
scheduled elections and a constitutional referendum.
An additional concern is that the continued presence of
AMISOM soldiers on Somali soil could generate increasingly
negative reactions from local populations, particularly given
that AMISOM now includes substantial numbers of military
personnel from neighboring nations which many Somali citizens
have historically regarded with distrust. Reports of abuses
committed by AMISOM personnel against local citizens appear to
have increased tensions between AMISOM and local populations in
recent months; these tensions are further exacerbated by the
significant disparity in monthly salaries between AMISOM
soldiers and members of the Somali National Army. Such
tensions, should they continue to grow, could fuel a resurgence
of al Shabaab or other violent groups intent on attacking
foreign forces.
The committee is concerned that continued support to AMISOM
also risks constraining or undermining the U.S. Government's
ability to address broader national security objectives in the
region. Continued support for AMISOM will require continued
support for, and dependence upon, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia
in a way that is potentially counterproductive to U.S.
bilateral and regional policies, particularly in the context of
increasing human rights concerns.
As a result, the committee believes the Department of
Defense should be working in close coordination with the
Department of State to plan for a U.S. Government policy toward
Somalia in a post-AMISOM context, to include planning for
concrete steps to transition AMISOM's mission to the SFG and
for addressing U.S. counterterrorism interests in AMISOM's
absence. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to
provide a report, not later than 180 days after the enactment
of this Act, outlining a strategy for U.S. action with regard
to the future of AMISOM and U.S. security and political support
to Somalia. This strategy should include:
(1) clearly identified, long-term end states and
policy objectives for addressing threats to U.S.
national security interests emanating from al Shabaab
or other actors in Somalia, and a description of what
role, if any, AMISOM should have in achieving those
objectives;
(2) a plan for assisting in the transition of
security responsibilities from AMISOM to the Somali
National Army;
(3) a specific strategy and timeline for winding down
U.S. financial and logistical support to AMISOM; and
(4) specific benchmarks and milestones by which to
measure progress toward achieving the end states,
objectives, and plans identified in (1)-(3).
The committee further expects the Secretary to ensure that
the aforementioned strategy informs DOD plans with regard to
continued security assistance programs in the region.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
Subtitle A--Funding Allocations
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill,
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$365 million, the amount of the budget request, for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision
authorizes specific amounts for each CTR program element,
requires notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary
of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2015 funds for a
purpose other than a purpose listed in the provision, and
requires notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary
of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2015 funds in
excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR program
element.
Subtitle B--Consolidation and Modernization of Statutes Relating to the
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
Consolidation and modernization of statutes relating to the Department
of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (secs. 1311-
1352)
The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate
and update Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction
authorities.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Military Programs
Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destruction,
defense, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D
of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug
activities, defense-wide, at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501
of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile and Related Matters
Report on development of secure supply of rare earth materials (sec.
1411)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees no later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, on the supply of rare earth
materials extracted, processed, and refined from secure sources
of supply to develop and produce advanced technologies in
support of requirements of the Department of Defense.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center,
Illinois (sec. 1421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $146.9 million from the
Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund to be used for operations of the Captain James A. Lovell
Federal Health Care Center, Illinois.
Comptroller General of the United States report on Captain James A.
Lovell Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago, Illinois
(sec. 1422)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services and on Veterans' Affairs of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the Captain
James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago,
Illinois, demonstration project not later than 120 days after
the date that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs submit to the Committees on Armed Services and
the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House
of Representatives their evaluation report on this
demonstration project.
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1423)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$63.4 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 from the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of
the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Designation and responsibilities of Senior Medical Advisor for the
Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1424)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1513A of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
(24 U.S.C. 413a) to make technical corrections regarding the
designation of the Senior Medical Advisor for the retirement
home to reflect the disestablishment of the TRICARE Management
Activity and creation of the new Defense Health Agency. The
provision would also replace the reference to the health care
standards of the Department of Veterans Affairs with the more
appropriate nationally recognized health care standards and
requirements.
Budget Items
Meals, ready-to-eat
The committee request included $44.2 million for the
working capital fund, Defense-wide, Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA).
The committee notes that a level of 5.0 million cases of
meals, ready-to-eat (MRE) was initiated in 2005 to support the
operational tempo of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. A July
2013 DLA Operations Research and Resource Analysis (DORRA)
found that MRE inventory levels should be set between 3.4
million and 3.9 million cases per year.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million to the working capital fund, Defense-wide, for the DLA.
Defense Commissary Agency
The budget request included $1.1 billion for the Working
Capital Fund, Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA). The budget
assumed savings of $200.0 million associated with a legislative
proposal to streamline and reform commissary operations. The
committee declined to support this proposal.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in the
Working Capital Fund, DeCA of $200.0 million to restore these
assumed savings.
Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to
United States Southern Command
The budget request includes $719.1 million for drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities, of which $7.7 million
is for United States Army Intelligence Command counternarcotics
surveillance support and $23.9 million is for a transit zone
maritime patrol aircraft for intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) support. This funding is intended to
assist United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to fulfill its
statutory mission (10 U.S.C. 124) for detection and monitoring
of aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the United
States. The committee notes that the SOUTHCOM Commander
identified shortfalls in the ISR support provided to SOUTHCOM
through the Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP)
and, therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million for additional ISR support for SOUTHCOM.
The amount authorized by the committee for this purpose is
in addition to the amounts already allocated in the President's
budget request to support SOUTHCOM's ISR requirements.
The committee notes that on March 13, 2014, General John F.
Kelly, the Commander of SOUTHCOM, testified before the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, that only about 5 percent of
SOUTHCOM's ISR requirements are being met. Gen. Kelly further
testified that, ``the vast majority of heroin that's consumed
in the United States is actually produced in Latin America. The
poppies are now grown in places like Guatemala and Colombia.''
The committee directs not later than 60 days after
enactment of this Act the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, in coordination with
the SOUTHCOM Commander, provide the congressional defense
committees a briefing on its plan to use the additional funding
to support SOUTHCOM's narcotics and illicit trafficking
detection, monitoring, and interdiction operations. The plan
should also identify any other shortfalls, particularly in the
area of maritime and fixed and rotary wing assets, and describe
any plans to mitigate the impact of these shortfalls to
operations.
Defense Health Program funding
The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense
Health Program includes the following changes from the budget
request.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE consolidation. -88.0
Annual person-to-person mental health assessments....... 10.0
Total............................................... -78.0
The committee recommends a total reduction in the Defense
Health Program of $78.0 million. This includes a reduction of
$88.0 million to reflect costs avoided by the Department of
Defense relative to its proposal to consolidate the TRICARE
program, which the committee did not adopt, and an increase of
$10.0 million to fund annual person-to-person mental health
assessments for servicemembers.
Items of Special Interest
Defense working capital funds
The committee is concerned that the Department of the
Treasury's decision to migrate from monthly to daily cash
balances for the defense working capital funds will likely be
delayed beyond October 1, 2014. In preparation for such a
migration, the committee is concerned that the Services are
purposefully building up excess cash as the Department of
Defense (DOD) determines the appropriate amount of cash
balances or sufficient cash balances in accordance with DOD's
financial military regulation policy. It remains unclear to the
committee precisely what DOD intends with respect to defining
sufficient cash balances.
The committee is also concerned that a projected shortfall
of $927.0 million in the fiscal year 2015 transportation
working capital fund may have a significant negative impact on
readiness, with respect to the airlift readiness account (ARA).
The $927.0 million shortfall will also negatively impact the
Air Force working capital fund cash balance and could affect
the solvency of the fund. The committee notes that in fiscal
year 2013, the Air Force failed to fund ARA requirements.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later
than October 1, 2015, on: (1) DOD's status made on the proposed
change to daily cash balances; (2) A specific definition of
sufficient cash balances that DOD and each military service
will follow; (3) The methodology used to calculate such
definition; (4) Recommendations on how to mitigate the need to
carry excess cash to avoid Anti-deficiency Act violations; and
(5) A mitigation plan to address the projected ARA shortfall,
including any initiatives that could result in savings.
Additionally, the committee urges DOD to consider
addressing the fiscal year 2015 ARA shortfall in its fiscal
year 2014 omnibus reprogramming request.
Department of Defense Inspector General
The committee recognizes that the independent audit and
investigative functions of the Department of Defense (DOD)
Inspector General (IG) continues to serve a valuable role in
identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD programs and
operations. In fiscal year 2013, DOD IG audits and
investigations resulted in over a $5.3 billion return on
investment, which is an increase of $1.7 billion in returns
compared to fiscal year 2012. The committee notes that of the
$5.3 billion returned in fiscal year 2013, $3.2 billion was in
achieved monetary benefits, $1.3 billion in civil judgments and
settlements, $733.0 million in criminal fines, penalties, and
restitutions, $81.5 million in administrative recoveries, and
$5.2 million in recovered government property. The 147 reports
issued in fiscal year 2013 led to 172 arrests, 242 convictions,
138 suspensions, and 161 debarments.
The committee remains encouraged and recognizes the DOD
IG's efforts to date and continued progress with respect to
audit readiness, the drawdown of military forces, acquisition
processes and financial management, sexual assault
investigative oversight, suicide prevention, readiness and
safety, information and cybersecurity, healthcare, intelligence
oversight, senior official accountability, and whistleblower
protection.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations
Purpose (sec. 1501)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
this title and make authorization of appropriations available
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to
provide for additional costs due to overseas contingency
operations.
Overseas Contingency Operations (sec. 1502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations.
Subtitle--Financial Matters
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1511)
The committee recommends a provision that would state that
amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by
this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1512)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related
funding authorizations in this title among accounts in this
title.
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters
Plan for transition of funding of United States Special Operations
Command from supplemental funding for overseas contingency
operations to recurring funding for future-years defense
programs (sec. 1521)
The committee notes that approximately one-third, or $2.3
billion, of the enacted budget for U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) for fiscal year 2014 was Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) funding. Furthermore, the committee
understands that at least $783.0 million of this OCO funding
has been identified by the Department of Defense and SOCOM as
an enduring requirement that will be necessary to sustain
special operations capabilities and readiness in future years.
For example, on March 11, 2014, the Commander of SOCOM
testified that ``SOCOM relies heavily on OCO funding today,
with the National Mission Force, in particular, funded with 67
percent of OCO.''
The committee notes that section 1534 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
congressional defense committees a plan to fully transition
appropriate SOCOM funding from the OCO to base budget over the
future years defense program to maintain critical and enduring
special operations capabilities. In a June 3, 2013, letter
responding to this provision, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict
stated ``As the Department's topline continues to decrease,
finding the resources to transfer SOCOM's OCO requirements to
the base budget remains particularly challenging. The
Department will assess transitioning future OCO to base
requirements during DOD's FY 2015 Program and Budget Review
(PBR) decision cycle, which will occur in the Summer and Fall
of 2013.
Unfortunately, the Department still has not provided the
congressional defense committees with the required plan. The
committee remains concerned that the Department has not
identified a plan to fully transition funding for enduring
special operations requirements from the OCO to base budget in
future years, potentially putting sustainment of such
capabilities at risk. Therefore, the committee again recommends
a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide the congressional defense committees, as part of the
fiscal year 2016 budget request, with a plan to fully
transition appropriate SOCOM funding from the OCO to base
budget over the future years defense program to maintain
critical and enduring special operations capabilities.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1522)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and would
thereby provide the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) with the authority to
investigate, develop, and provide equipment, supplies,
services, training, facilities, personnel, and funds to assist
United States forces in the defeat of improvised explosive
devices for Operation Enduring Freedom or any successor
operation to that operation. The provision would also extend
JIEDDO's authority with respect to homemade explosives, and
would sunset this authority on December 31, 2015. The provision
would also direct the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to present to the
congressional defense committees a plan to consolidate any
enduring functions of the stated organizations, capabilities,
and funding into an appropriate organization identified as part
of that review.
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1523)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund (ASFF) for fiscal year 2015 continue to be subject to the
conditions specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section
1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended. The provision would also
extend the requirement under subsection (c)(1) of section 1531
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) that not less than $25.0 million of ASFF
funding be available to be used to promote the recruitment,
integration, retention, training, and treatment of women in the
Afghanistan National Security Forces. The provision would also
extend the authority under section 1531(d) of Public Law 113-66
for the Department of Defense to dispose of certain equipment
in Afghanistan.
The committee understands that for logistical and security
reasons Afghan Air Force (AAF) pilots will initially train on
A-29 Light Attack Support aircraft in the United States. The
committee concurs with this course of action with the
understanding that the U.S. Government intends to transfer all
20 A-29 aircraft used in such training to the Government of
Afghanistan to support military operations after the initial
training of the AAF pilots is complete, regardless of the
outcome of Bilateral Security Agreement negotiations.
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (sec. 1524)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense funds for the
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.
Sense of Congress regarding counter-improvised explosive devices (sec.
1525)
The committee recommends a provision that express the sense
of Congress on the importance of retaining, to the extent
practicable, a knowledge base relating to counter-improvised
explosive device operations.
Budget Item
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request includes $115.1 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat fund for the Joint IED
Defeat Organization's (JIEDDO) staff and infrastructure
expenses.
As it has in each fiscal year since JIEDDO's inception, the
committee declines to recommend any funding for JIEDDO in the
base budget and therefore recommends a reduction of $115.1
million in the Joint IED Defeat fund. The committee understands
that the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to request funding
for the Joint IED Defeat fund in the overseas contingency
operations budget request later this year.
The committee recognizes the important work JIEDDO has done
but notes that JIEDDO was created as a temporary wartime
organization. The committee believes that the operational tempo
in U.S. Central Command provides an opportunity to conduct a
review, captured in another title of this Act, that should lead
to consolidation and, where appropriate, elimination of
organizations, such as JIEDDO, that provide response to
emergent warfighter needs.
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
Subtitle A--Nuclear Forces
Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic
missile fuses (sec. 1601)
The committee recommends a provision that would give
authority to procure commercial parts for intercontinental
ballistic missile fuses, notwithstanding 10 U.S.C. 1502(a), for
fiscal year 2015.
Form of and cost estimates relating to annual reports on plan for the
nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, nuclear
weapons delivery systems, and nuclear weapons command and
control system (sec. 1602)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to include an update by
the Congressional Budget Office of the report required by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239) that would provide a 10-year estimate of costs
associated with the fielding and maintaining the current
nuclear weapons and delivery systems of the United States.
Reports on installation of nuclear command, control, and communications
systems at the United States Strategic Command headquarters
(sec. 1603)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to submit an
annual report on the installation of nuclear command, control,
and communications (NC3) systems as part of the replacement for
the STRATCOM headquarters. Such systems are unique, complex,
and highly integrated within the overall U.S. NC3 architecture.
In addition, many of the systems, such as the Strategic
Automated Command and Control System and the Mission Planning
and Analysis System, are based on outdated protocols, computer
languages, and architectures that will most likely be
incompatible with the communications systems in the new
headquarters building. Either these outdated systems will have
to be replaced or have interfaces built between them and the
new headquarters building--a daunting task.
The requirement for an annual report would terminate at
such time as when the Commander of STRATCOM certifies to the
congressional defense committees that all milestones have been
completed, and the headquarters building is a fully functioning
node in the overall NC3 architecture.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) shall review the
existing milestones and scope of the effort and provide a
technical briefing to the congressional defense committees no
later than September 30, 2014, as to whether the scope of the
current effort is complete, fully integrated, and meets
accepted programmatic planning practices.
The GAO shall review the report submitted each year and
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on
whether the installation is meeting projected milestones and
costs and whether there are outstanding programmatic or
technical issues that must be addressed to meet these
milestones so that the building can become an operational hub
in the overall NC3 network.
Reports on potential reductions to B61 life extension program (sec.
1604)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Commander of
U.S. Strategic Command to provide it with separate reports in
advance of any decision to reduce the scope of the B61 Life
Extension Program below the level proposed in the Fiscal Year
2015 Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan. The committee notes
that Assistant Secretary of Defense Madelyn Creedon's testimony
last year that, ``the Nuclear Weapons Council changed the
schedule and cumulative production quantity for the W76-1
program. This change reduced the total LEP production quantity
and realigned the end of the production period for all
operational units from FY 2021 to FY 2019.'' The committee is
not aware of any similar changes being discussed for the B61,
but believes Congress should be notified in advance of any such
action, since changes to the program could have far reaching
consequences for U.S. national security and obligations to U.S.
allies, as well as implications for the cost and schedule of
the life extension program itself.
Sense of Congress on deterrence and defense posture of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1605)
The committee recommends a provision that would express a
sense of Congress that reaffirms and remains committed to the
policies enumerated in the Deterrence and Defense Posture
Review of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, dated May 20,
2012.
Subtitle B--Missile Defense Programs
Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 1611)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress on the importance of defending the United
States Homeland against the threat of limited ballistic missile
attack from North Korea and Iran, and would require a report
describing the status of current and planned efforts to improve
United States Homeland missile defense capabilities to keep
pace with the evolving threat.
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is taking, and plans to
take, numerous steps to improve homeland missile defense,
including near-term, mid-term, and far-term enhancements. These
include: (1) Near-term improvements to the reliability and
performance of the currently deployed Ground-based Interceptor
(GBI) kill vehicles; (2) Deployment of 14 additional GBIs in
Alaska by the end of 2017; (3) Investments in enhanced sensor
capabilities, including a new Long-Range Discriminating Radar
in Alaska, and discrimination capabilities to improve
operational effectiveness and efficiency of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system; (4) A mid-term re-design of the
GMD Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) to improve its
capability, producibility, maintainability, affordability, and
testability; and (5) Plans to design a Next-Generation EKV to
take full advantage of improvements in sensors, discrimination,
kill assessment, battle management, and command and control,
including the potential to defeat multiple threats with
individual interceptors.
The committee supports these multiple efforts to improve
homeland missile defense, particularly the improvements to
sensor and discrimination capabilities, and the re-design of
the EKV and plans to design a Next Generation EKV.
The improvements to sensor and discrimination capabilities
should improve the operational effectiveness, cost-
effectiveness, and efficiency of the deployed inventory of GBIs
with better targeting information that will allow the
interceptors to defeat more targets. The committee expects MDA
to pursue cost-effective development and acquisition approaches
for these capabilities to ensure they are both affordable and
effective, and directs MDA to keep the congressional defense
committees fully apprised of progress on the acquisition of
these capabilities.
The committee also supports the plans to improve
substantially the performance and reliability of future EKVs
through the re-design (Phase 1) and the Next Generation EKV
(Phase 2) efforts. Although MDA is still developing the
requirements and acquisition plan for the re-designed EKV, it
expects to flight test the re-designed EKV beginning in 2018,
and to introduce it into the next procurement of GBIs starting
in 2020, if development and testing prove successful. The
committee expects MDA to use a rigorous acquisition approach,
including realistic testing, that can achieve a demonstrated
capability as soon as practicable using sound acquisition
principles and practices. Elsewhere in this report, the
committee addresses the need for a rigorous acquisition plan
for the re-designed EKV.
The Next Generation EKV is intended to take advantage of
common kill vehicle technologies and improvements to the full
range of homeland defense capabilities, such as discrimination
and hit assessment, to defeat the evolving missile threat from
nations such as North Korea and Iran. The MDA anticipates
deploying the Next Generation EKV starting early in the next
decade. It also could include the ability to defeat multiple
threat objects with individual interceptors.
Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 1612)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress on the importance of effective regional
missile defenses to protect U.S. forward deployed forces,
allies, and partner countries against the growing threat of
regional ballistic missiles, particularly from Iran and North
Korea, to Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region.
The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to provide
a report on the status and progress of efforts to improve
regional missile defense capabilities in these regions,
including efforts and cooperation by allies and partner
countries.
The Missile Defense Agency reports that the European Phased
Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense is on track to
deploy the Phase 2 Aegis Ashore site in Romania in 2015 and the
Phase 3 Aegis Ashore site in Poland by the end of 2018. These
capabilities are intended to increase the defensive coverage of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization area of Europe against
increasingly capable and numerous Iranian missiles. The
committee supports the continued development, testing, and
implementation of Phases 2 and 3 of the EPAA, and believes
these capabilities will be important components of regional
European security.
The committee notes that the United States is working with
its Gulf Cooperation Council partner nations to improve
regional air and missile defense capabilities, including data
sharing and multilateral cooperation. The committee believes
that such multilateral cooperation would enhance regional
security and would provide significant improvements beyond
national and bi-national capabilities. The committee encourages
the Department of Defense (DOD) to make such multilateral air
and missile defense cooperation a regional security priority.
The committee notes the significant missile defense
cooperation with Japan, including the co-development of the
Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor, and believes this
cooperation is an important element of the allied response to
North Korea's regional missile capabilities. The committee
encourages DOD to continue working with other allies and
partners in the region, particularly including South Korea and
Australia, to enhance protection against North Korean regional
missile capabilities.
The committee notes that U.S. regional missile defense
capabilities in each of these regions would be enhanced by
increased interoperability and coordination among the
geographic combatant commands and the capabilities under their
control, and encourages DOD to take steps to maximize such
interoperability and coordination.
Availability of funds for missile defense programs of Israel (sec.
1613)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$350.9 million for the Department of Defense to provide to the
Government of Israel to procure the Iron Dome short-range
rocket defense system, including for co-production of Iron Dome
parts and components in the United States by U.S. industry. The
provision would also provide that, if the Government of Israel
determines that it is a higher priority for its national
security, up to $175.0 million of the amount authorized for
Iron Dome may be used for the following U.S.-Israel cooperative
missile defense programs: (1) The Arrow System Improvement
Program; (2) The Arrow-3 Upper Tier interceptor development
program; and (3) The David's Sling short-range ballistic
missile defense system.
The provision would also require that the funds authorized
for Iron Dome would be available subject to the terms,
conditions, and co-production targets specified for fiscal year
2015 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,'' signed on March 5, 2014. If the Government of
Israel decides to use part or all of the $175.0 million
authorized for the three specified cooperative missile defense
programs, the provision would require that such funds be
subject to the terms and conditions of the joint U.S.-Israel
Project Agreements governing the management and execution of
these cooperative programs.
The committee notes that the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome
agreement specifies that the funding level for Iron Dome for
fiscal year 2015 would be $175.9 million, the amount in the
budget request, and the final amount of the $677.0 million the
United States agreed in 2012 to seek for Iron Dome from fiscal
years 2012 to 2015. However, the Government of Israel has
requested an additional $175.0 million for Iron Dome
procurement in fiscal year 2015.
The committee notes that Iron Dome has played an important
role in protecting Israel's population from short-range rocket
and mortar attacks. The United States has supported Israel's
procurement of Iron Dome interceptors and batteries by
providing Israel more than $700.0 million since fiscal year
2011. The committee continues to be supportive of Iron Dome,
and of co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in
accordance with the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome agreement. However,
the committee also has been supportive of the three cooperative
missile defense programs that were jointly developed by the
United States and Israel, and recognizes that they may be a
higher priority for Israel to receive additional funding. This
provision would provide the authority to permit Israel to use
part or all of the additional $175.0 million for the missile
defense programs that are the higher priority.
Acquisition plan for re-designed Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (sec.
1614)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a robust acquisition plan for
the re-design of the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) of the
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. The provision
would require the acquisition plan to include rigorous elements
for systems engineering, design, integration, development,
testing, and evaluation to ensure that the re-designed EKV is
operationally effective, reliable, producible, cost-effective,
maintainable, and testable. Consistent with the fly-before-you-
buy acquisition approach, the provision would also require the
re-designed EKV to be tested and demonstrated to have a high
probability of working in an operationally effective manner
prior to its operational deployment.
The committee notes that on February 25, 2014, Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Frank Kendall described problems with the GMD system as being
related to ``a lot of bad engineering,'' saying it was
``because there was a rush--to get something out.'' As
acknowledged by Vice Admiral James Syring, Director of the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), at a press conference on March 4,
2014, the current GMD system was deployed with prototype kill
vehicle designs that were developed and deployed without robust
and rigorous acquisition practices, noting that ``we cut short
the design cycle'' and the ``systems engineering cycle.''
Consequently, the GMD system has experienced several flight
test failures since 2010 with both models of deployed kill
vehicles, the Capability Enhancement-I and the Capability
Enhancement-II. In a January 2014 report to Congress, the
Director Of Operational Test and Evaluation wrote that these
test failures ``raise questions regarding the robustness of the
EKV design,'' and recommended that MDA consider re-designing
the EKV ``using a rigorous systems engineering process to
assure its design is robust against failure.''
As reflected in the budget request, MDA is planning to re-
design the EKV, to increase its reliability, performance,
producibility, and affordability, among other features. The
committee supports this effort. At a hearing before the
committee on April 2, 2014, all witnesses agreed that the re-
design effort should be based on a rigorous acquisition
process. Admiral Syring testified to Congress that ``we have
one chance to get it right. And circumventing the system
engineering, design cycle, prototype testing and qualification
will not happen. There's a very rigorous process that's
followed for properly engineered missile systems.''
The committee agrees on the need for a rigorous application
of existing acquisition requirements established in law and
regulation, and believes that a rigorous acquisition process is
essential to ensure that the re-designed kill vehicle works in
an operationally effective and cost-effective manner.
Testing and assessment of missile defense systems prior to production
and deployment (sec. 1615)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to
follow a ``fly before you buy'' approach to adequately test and
assess the elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
(BMDS) before final production decisions or operational
deployment. The provision would require the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that, prior to making a final production
decision for, and prior to the operational deployment of, a new
or substantially upgraded interceptor or weapon system of the
BMDS, sufficient and operationally realistic testing of the
system is conducted and that the results of such testing have
demonstrated that the interceptor or weapon system will work in
an operationally effective and cost-effective manner when
needed. The provision would also require the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, prior to any such final
production decision or operational deployment, to provide an
assessment to the Secretary of the testing, including an
assessment of whether the system will be sufficiently
effective, suitable, and survivable when needed, and to provide
to the congressional defense committees a written summary of
the Director's assessment.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted
numerous studies of missile defense acquisition programs and
found that excessive concurrency has plagued a number of these
programs, particularly the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
system. The GMD system was deployed starting in 2004 without
having conducted adequate testing and assessment of the design
of the Ground-Based Interceptor and its Exo-atmospheric Kill
Vehicle. The system has suffered several flight test failures
since 2010 that have required more than $1.3 billion and 4
years of effort to correct.
One of the keys to avoiding excessive concurrency, and to
ensuring that missile defense systems will be operationally
effective and cost-effective, is to follow the ``fly before you
buy'' approach of testing systems realistically to assess their
performance, prior to making final production decisions or
deploying them operationally. In the 2010 Ballistic Missile
Defense Review, the DOD stated that it would conduct
operationally realistic testing of new missile defense systems
to assess their performance prior to deployment. This provision
would help ensure that this policy is implemented, and help
avoid post-production and post-deployment problems like those
encountered with the GMD system.
Subtitle C--Space Activities
Update of National Security Space Strategy to include space control and
space superiority strategy (sec. 1621)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence to update the space control and space
superiority strategy pursuant to the Space Posture Review
conducted under section 913 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
Allocation of funds for the Space Security and Defense Program; Report
on Space Control (sec. 1622)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
preponderance of the funds used within the Space Security and
Defense Program be allocated to offensive space control and
active defense strategies with a statement on the use of such
funds at the time of the President's budget submission to
Congress.
Prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers of critical space
launch supplies for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Program (sec. 1623)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from entering into a new contract or
renewing a current contract for space launch supplies if those
supplies are provided by Russian suppliers.
The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle currently relies on a
partially state-owned Russian company to provide engines to
launch a portion of the Department of Defense's national
security satellites--including our intelligence community's
satellites. The committee finds this reliance on a Russian
company for rocket engines to be inconsistent with the need for
assured access to space. Also, given recent geopolitical
events, this reliance on Russian suppliers reduces options
available to respond to actions affecting the national security
interests of the United States and our allies.
Further, this reliance is unnecessary given potential
future competition in the area of space launch and the
potential development of a new domestically-produced rocket
engine supported by the committee.
The committee also strongly recommends that if the
Secretary of Defense determines that a waiver is issued under
this section for the procurement of rocket engines, the waiver
should be approved well in advance of the start of contract
negotiations.
Assessment of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1624)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Government Accountability Office to assess the advisability of
the Secretary of Defense to require that launch providers
establish business systems complying with data requirements and
cost accounting standards of the Department of Defense.
Report on reliance of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program on
foreign manufacturers (sec. 1625)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Government Accountability Office to submit within 180 days of
enactment of this Act, a report on the reliance of the risks to
the Expendable Evolved Launch Vehicle program of reliance on
foreign manufacturers.
Availability of additional rocket cores pursuant to competitive
procedures (sec. 1626)
The committee recommends a provision, based upon the Fiscal
Year 2015 National Security Space Launch Forecast, that the
Secretary of Defense shall make available during fiscal year
2015 one additional core for open competition. The provision
also requires that between fiscal years 2015 and 2017, one
additional competitive core shall be made available unless the
Secretary determines that there is no practicable way to
implement this requirement while remaining in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the 36 core block buy under the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. Upon making
such a determination, the Secretary shall certify within 45
days that there is no practicable way to add the second
additional core for open competition as well as describing the
basis for such a determination and providing both to
congressional defense committees.
The National Security Space Launch Forecast is the number
the cores to be procured (as a function of payload) under the
EELV program between fiscal years 2013 to 2017.
Competitive procedures required to launch payload for mission number
five of the Operationally Responsive Space program (sec. 1627)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
competitive procedures be used to launch the payload for the
Operationally Responsive Space program mission number five.
Limitation on funding for storage of Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program satellites (sec. 1628)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funding the storage of the last Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite #20 unless the Secretary of
Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that
the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to launch the satellite
and will have sufficient funding to do so in the future years
defense program and that storing the satellite until a launch
in 2020 is the most cost-effective approach to meeting the
requirements of DOD.
The committee is concerned that the budget requested
funding to store a satellite the Air Force has no intention of
launching. Despite the Air Force's analysis demonstrating the
high cost of long-term storage and the low-added mission
benefit of launching DMSP #20 in the 2020 timeframe, the budget
requested funding to store the satellite for an additional
year. In addition, the Air Force terminated the funding to
procure the launch vehicle for DMSP #20. This disconnect is
especially troubling given the numerous funding shortfalls
across the defense space budget, not to mention the greater DOD
budget. The committee is concerned that the Air Force would
request significant funding to keep a satellite they have no
intent of launching into space.
Storing satellite #20 will cost $87.0 million in fiscal
year 2015 and approximately that same amount each year
thereafter. The satellite is built on components that are not
supported, its sensors must be stored at different vendors
around the United States and approximately one half of the
costs are related to keeping staff on hand until the satellite
is launched to support its payload integration at launch.
This year DOD is finalizing an alternative that will meet
military needs with fewer sensors and less cost. The committee
directs DOD to brief the committee when this alternative is
approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.
Plan for development of liquid rocket engine for medium or heavy lift
launch vehicle; transfer of certain funds (sec. 1629)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a program plan for the
production of a liquid rocket engine capable of supporting the
requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD) for a medium or
heavy lift launch vehicle to support national security launch
missions by no later than 2019. The plan shall be due by
September 30, 2014. The provision would require that the plan
be based on competition. The committee expects that in
developing this program, DOD should consult with other agencies
with liquid rocket engine expertise, such as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The committee also understands that there are propulsion
systems in addition to liquid rocket engines that could provide
capabilities in the future that support DOD requirements for
medium or heavy launch vehicles, and encourages DOD to
continually review the potential of using such propulsion
systems. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees within
180 days of the enactment of this Act given the potential that
other propulsion systems have to support this mission.
Study of space situational awareness architecture (sec. 1630)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to task the Defense Science Board to
assess the architecture of the ground and space sensors used
for space situational awareness (SSA) for both defensive and
offensive space operations over a 5-, 10-, and 20-year budget
plan. The assessment shall also include ground systems to task
the sensors and process the data. The SSA sensor system is a
collection of sensors that either have been explicitly designed
for SSA or are dual purpose sensors that can contribute to SSA
when not performing their primary mission, such as missile
warning. Each of these sensors are added over time to close
specific gaps as the need has arisen and the number of objects
to track in space has grown. This assessment shall look at the
threats over the next 20 years and determine the optimal mix of
SSA sensors from an integrated viewpoint, taking into account
the ground systems to process the data. Given the sensitive
nature of this assessment, the report shall be classified with
an unclassified summary.
Sense of the Senate on resolution limits on commercial space imagery
(sec. 1631)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should
support the relaxation of panchromatic, spectral, and infrared
imagery resolution limits on the sale of commercial space
imagery. The provision would also call for the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy to provide a recommendation to Congress
by April 1, 2015, on the design and development of a flexible
and dynamic capability to control the collection and sale of
commercial space imagery to protect national security.
The administration is now considering a proposal to relax
the resolution restrictions on the sale of commercial space
imagery in stages through 2017. The committee believes that the
Secretary of Defense, in interagency proceedings, should
support an official commitment now that industry will be able
to sell imagery at the targeted resolution limits in 2017. This
step should be taken now to provide certainty for industry to
enter into business arrangements in order to be ready to
provide products at the improved resolution limits when the new
limits go into effect.
The licensing terms for U.S. companies who want to sell
images collected from space allow the U.S. Government to impose
prohibitions on the collection of imagery on specific places on
the ground at specific times. Also, through contract
arrangements, the Government can control the tasking of
collection operations and thereby prevent the collection of
imagery of any specific places or events. Alternatively, the
Government can buy such images, classify them, and prevent
their sale and dissemination. However, the Government has not
chosen to utilize these means to protect national security.
Instead, it has placed restrictions on the resolution of images
that can be sold commercially on a global basis, despite the
fact that there are relatively few places or events for which
the capture in high resolution imagery would pose a risk to
national security. Since the commercial space imaging industry
emerged in the 1990s, the Government's policy has been to relax
resolution limits only when U.S. companies begin to face
significant competition from non-U.S. providers. This policy
unnecessarily restrains U.S. industry, not only to the
detriment of consumers but also to national security, because
the intelligence community, our military forces, and emergency
responders all have needs for higher resolution imagery
products, and especially the unclassified products that
commercial industry provides.
In exercising the Government's rights to prevent the
collection of sensitive events, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to pursue cost neutral arrangements and
to avoid unnecessary image purchases to conserve resources
wherever security plans do not require alternative collection.
Subtitle D--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related Matters
Cyberspace mapping (sec. 1641)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, within 60 days of the date of enactment
of this Act, to designate a network or network segment within
the Department of Defense (DOD) to support the execution of a
pilot program to demonstrate large-scale cyberspace mapping
technology, as approved by the Cyber Investment Management
Board (CIMB). The provision also would require the Principal
Cyber Advisor, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, to
recommend policy to the Secretary of Defense regarding the
mapping of cyberspace to support the missions of U.S. Cyber
Command (CYBERCOM).
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence approved a pilot demonstration of technology to
comprehensively and rapidly map information networks in fiscal
year 2013. The CIMB approved it as a cyber acquisition pilot
early in fiscal year 2014. The pilot has not proceeded,
however, because no network owner within DOD has volunteered
for their network to be the test subject for this pilot, which
would require creating an accurate topology to serve as ground
truth against which to measure the performance of the mapping
technology. The purpose of the provision is to make a decision
in order to get the assessment conducted.
As the committee has emphasized in recent years, DOD does
not possess the ability to map large portions of cyberspace
quickly a--prerequisite for conducting military operations.
Military forces can no more operate on the virtual terrain of
cyberspace without cartographic support than they can in
physical space without maps to guide them. There are a wide
variety of mapping techniques used extensively by commercial
industry and academia, as well as proposed refinements, that
could meet the needs of CYBERCOM. The committee is concerned
that a lack of policy is hindering practical planning in this
critical area. DOD needs to determine what can be done and
under what authorities and circumstances to enable CYBERCOM to
develop requirements and the acquisition community to fulfill
those needs.
Review of cross domain solution policy and requirement for cross domain
solution strategy (sec. 1642)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review the policies of the Department
of Defense (DOD), and develop a strategy concerning the
procurement, approval, and use of capabilities to transmit
information across networks and systems at different security
classification levels.
Military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have repeatedly
shown both the need for, and the perils involved in,
transferring critical intelligence and other operational data
across networks with different security levels quickly and
efficiently. In April 2010, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
publicly reported on a widespread intrusion into some of the
most sensitive networks in the U.S. Government. This intrusion
was enabled by an infected thumb drive that was used, along
with countless others, as an expedient means of transferring
data quickly across classified and unclassified network
domains, in violation of DOD policy, to meet warfighters'
needs. This incident shows the importance of effective cross
domain capabilities, policies, and oversight to protect the
confidentiality and integrity of DOD networks. Although cross
domain solutions are recognized as critical enabling
technologies, DOD still lacks a cohesive strategy to acquire,
use, and audit the capabilities that it requires to securely
transfer data. This need is exacerbated by DOD's planned
transition to increased uses of enterprise resources and cloud
computing. The evolution of DOD and the intelligence agencies
to the Joint Information Environment, the Defense Intelligence
Information Enterprise, and the Intelligence Community
Information Technology Environment will bring both
opportunities and challenges for the application of cross
domain solutions, and a comprehensive strategy will be vital.
Beyond planning for the future, the committee is also
concerned that the variety of cross domain solutions fielded to
date have inconsistent levels of security and performance, are
applied haphazardly, and lack key capabilities to protect
against sophisticated threats. DOD needs a better understanding
of the current and future requirements, more consistent and
enforceable policies, and greater investment in improved
technological solutions.
The committee is aware that the Chief Information Officer
and the Defense Information Systems Agency are working on a
cross-domain enterprise service. In addition, the National
Security Agency (NSA) has sponsored development of integrated
cross domain solutions with improved security to enable
tailoring of cross domain tools to specific security risks and
data transfer requirements. NSA and the National Reconnaissance
Office have also initiated investments in technology for
virtualizing cross domain appliances for cloud applications.
However, NSA's program has faltered due to budget cuts, and no
initiatives have been taken to modify the current information
assurance certification and accreditation process, which is
based on the tight coupling of hypervisors to hardware, to
support cross domain virtualization.
Budgeting and accounting for cyber mission forces (sec. 1643)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Secretary of Defense, for fiscal year 2017 and every
succeeding year, for the President's annual budget submission
and supporting documents, to develop a major force program
(MFP) category and program elements for the Department of
Defense (DOD) future years defense program for the training,
arming, and equipping of the cyber mission forces. The
provision would also require the Secretary to assess the
feasibility and advisability of establishing a general fund
transfer account to execute the funds programmed in the MFP and
provide a recommendation to the congressional defense
committees by April 1, 2015.
The committee believes that the cyber mission, conducted by
large cyber mission forces under a sub-unified command and
component command elements in the combatant commands, is
important enough and sensitive enough to warrant the degree of
visibility and focus provided by a MFP designation and
dedicated program elements. The committee recognizes that
establishing a MFP could create difficulties in executing funds
through existing channels and therefore directs DOD to consider
whether to recommend using a transfer account to translate
funds from MFP categories to existing ones.
The committee directs the Principal Cyber Advisor, in
coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness, to shift the majority of the funding for cyber
mission forces personnel from the Military Intelligence Program
(MIP) to reflect the warfighting mission of U.S. Cyber Command.
MIP funding should be restricted to those personnel whose
primary responsibility is providing intelligence support to the
operational forces. There is a growing recognition that
military operations in cyberspace will, in fact, be
substantially different from signals intelligence collection in
the cyber domain. Military cyber forces will need distinctly
different tools, infrastructure, training, range support,
exercise support, and concepts of operation.
The committee directs the Principal Cyber Advisor to
provide a report to the congressional defense and intelligence
committees by March 15, 2015, on DOD's actions and plans to
comply with this direction.
Requirement for strategy to develop and deploy decryption service for
the Joint Information Environment (sec. 1644)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for a decryption
service for the Joint Information Environment (JIE). The goal
of the strategy would be to acquire the ability to securely and
efficiently decrypt and re-encrypt communications to enable the
inspection of communications content to detect cyber threats
and insider threat activity. The provision would require the
strategy to include a requirements definition, an architecture,
a concept of operations, a cost estimate, and an assessment of
the security benefit of such a service. The provision would
require a briefing on the strategy to be provided to the
congressional defense and intelligence committees by October 1,
2015.
The use of encryption to provide security for client-server
communications and transactions, and by applications and search
engines, has been growing steadily, and comprised a large
percentage of total communications traffic traversing
Department of Defense (DOD) Internet Access Points (IAP) even
prior to the leaks by Edward Snowden. The Snowden revelations
are causing an acceleration of this trend. The committee
believes it is unwise for DOD to let encrypted traffic pass by
its intrusion detection and prevention, packet capture, next-
generation firewalls, and behavior-based detection systems
because of an inability to decrypt and re-encrypt encrypted
communications at IAPs and regional security centers. The
entire burden of defense is placed on endpoint or host-based
defenses, which are not equal to the task.
The committee recognizes that there are complex choices and
trade-offs to be made when such a service is inserted into an
enterprise between users, web sites, and applications, but
believes that DOD needs to work through those issues and decide
on a solution before this problem gets much worse.
Reporting on penetrations into networks and information systems of
operationally critical contractors (sec. 1645)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary to establish procedures for designating contractors
as ``operationally critical contractors,'' notifying such
contractors that they have been designated, and requiring
designated contractors to report successful penetrations of
their computer networks by known or suspected advanced
persistent threat (APT) actors. The provision narrowly defines
an operationally critical contractor as a company designated by
the Secretary as a critical source of supply for airlift,
sealift, intermodal transportation services, or logistical
support that is essential to mobilization, deployment, or
sustainment in a contingency operation.
The provision would require that the procedures include
mechanisms for the Department of Defense (DOD) to assist
contractors in detecting and mitigating network penetrations
and include protections for trade secrets, commercial or
financial information, and information that could be used to
identify a specific person. The provision stipulates that the
procedures issued by the Secretary will permit DOD to share
reported cyber intrusion information with agencies that conduct
counterintelligence investigations for their use in such
investigations.
The provision also would require the Secretary to assess
existing contractor reporting requirements and department
policies and systems for sharing of information on successful
cyber intrusions into DOD contractor networks. Upon completion
of that assessment, the provision would require the Secretary
to designate a single DOD component to receive cyber intrusion
reports from contractors and other government agencies and
issue or revise guidance to ensure that cyber intrusion-related
information is shared by the designated DOD component with
other appropriate DOD components.
The private sector plays a crucial role in force
mobilization, deployment, and sustainment operations. In fact,
the former head of U.S. Cyber Command estimated that more than
80 percent of our logistics are transported by private
companies. According to U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM),
private airlines, for example, provide more than 90 percent of
DOD's passenger movement capability and more than one third of
its bulk cargo capability. In addition, the overwhelming
majority of DOD deployment and distribution transactions--the
former Commander of TRANSCOM estimated more than 90 percent--
occur over unclassified networks.
The Department's reliance on private companies and
unclassified networks to conduct contingency mobilization,
deployment, and sustainment operations make the networks of
operationally critical defense contractors attractive targets
for foreign governments and other APT actors.
According to DOD, Chinese military analysts, for example,
have identified logistics and mobilization as potential U.S.
vulnerabilities and the Department has said that Chinese
military doctrine ``advocate[es] targeting adversary command
and control and logistics networks to impact their ability to
operate during the early stages of conflict.'' U.S. experts on
Chinese military planning have raised the prospect of China
using cyber capabilities to impede U.S. force deployment in the
event of a contingency.
It is critical that DOD be aware of successful cyber
intrusions by APTs into the computer networks of operationally
critical contractors so that TRANSCOM and other potentially
affected combatant commands can assess the risks to contingency
operations posed by those intrusions and adjust operational
plans, if necessary.
The committee recently completed an investigation into how
much information was known to TRANSCOM about successful APT-
attributed cyber intrusions into the computer networks of
command contractors. The investigation found that TRANSCOM was
not aware of the overwhelming majority of such intrusions.
Reasons for the lack of awareness included gaps in requirements
for cyber intrusion reporting and failures within DOD to share
information known about successful APT-attributed cyber
intrusions with TRANSCOM. The provision is directed at
addressing those reporting gaps and improving the way in which
the Department receives, assesses, and disseminates information
about successful APT intrusions into the networks of
operationally critical contractors.
Sense of Congress on the future of the Internet and the .mil top level
domain (sec. 1646)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should:
(1) Advise the President to transfer the remaining
role of the United States Government in the functions
of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to a
global multi-stakeholder community only if the
President is confident that the .mil top level domain
and the Internet protocol address numbers used
exclusively by the Department of Defense (DOD) for
national security will remain exclusively used by the
Department; and
(2) Take all necessary steps to sustain the
successful stewardship and good standing of the
Internet root zone servers managed by DOD components.
The committee urges the Secretary to seek an agreement
through the IANA transition process, or in parallel to it,
between the United States and the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers and the rest of the global Internet
stakeholders that the .mil domain will continue to be afforded
the same generic top level domain status after the transition
that it has always enjoyed, on a par with all other country-
specific domains.
Subtitle E-Intelligence-Related Matters
Extension of Secretary of Defense authority to engage in commercial
activities as security for intelligence collection activities
(sec. 1651)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
current statutory authority for the Secretary of Defense to
authorize the conduct of those commercial activities necessary
to provide security for authorized intelligence collection
activities abroad undertaken by the Department of Defense by
amending subsection 431(a) of title 10, United States Code, to
change the current sunset date from December 31, 2015, to
December 31, 2017.
Authority for Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial activities
as security for military operations abroad (sec. 1652)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsections 431 through 437 of title 10, United States Code,
to: (1) Allow the Secretary of Defense to employ commercial
activities as security for military operations, in addition to
existing authority for using such activities for intelligence
operations; (2) Direct that reports of audits on commercial
activities used as security for intelligence operations as
reported to the congressional defense and intelligence
committees, and reports on audits of commercial activities used
as security for military operations are reported to the
congressional defense committees only; and (3) Make conforming
changes throughout these subsections.
Extension of authority relating to jurisdiction over Department of
Defense facilities for intelligence collection or special
operations activities abroad (sec. 1653)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 926(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to extend the sunset dates
in the provision in paragraph (1) by striking ``September 30,
2015'' and inserting ``September 30, 2017''; and by striking
``fiscal year 2016'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2018.''
Personnel security and insider threat (sec. 1654)
The committee recommends a provision to enable the
Department of Defense (DOD) to respond appropriately to the
direction of the President and the Secretary of Defense to the
numerous serious security and insider threats that have
affected the DOD. The provision would require the Secretary of
Defense to establish an interim continuous evaluation (CE)
system not later than September 30, 2015, to continuously
evaluate the security status of DOD employees and contractors
who are approved to access secret or top secret classified
information by the DOD Central Adjudicative Facility. The
provision would require that the Secretary achieve the ability
to at least continuously monitor personnel with access to the
most sensitive classified information and privileged access to
networks and databases.
The provision also would require the Secretary to
capitalize on the interim system to develop business rules,
requirements, lessons learned, privacy standards, and
operational concepts that will be valuable for the development
of an objective CE capability.
The provision would require that both the interim system
and the objective CE system be engineered to interface with the
larger insider threat detection capability mandated by
Executive Order (EO) 13587. The provision would also require
that the objective CE capability be acquired competitively to
take advantage of the best commercial technology, and be
designed as an open system to enable upgrades as technology
evolves.
The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a multi-disciplinary team of experts from across the
Department to assist the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence (USDI), as the Senior Agency Official for insider
threat detection and prevention under EO 13587. This team would
be composed of experts in counterintelligence, personnel
security, law enforcement, physical security, human resources,
privacy and civil liberties, network monitoring, cybersecurity,
systems engineering, information technology, large-scale data
analysis, and program acquisition.
This collection of expertise is vital to fulfill the
President's mandate in EO 13587 to create an automation-
assisted insider threat capability that is integrated across
all the currently stove-piped functions listed above. Achieving
the ability to conduct integrated insider threat analyses in
all these functional areas across the military services,
defense agencies, and commands is a daunting management,
information technology acquisition, and systems engineering
challenge. Currently, the USDI has no structure or team of
personnel with the expertise necessary to meet this challenge.
In addition to this management team, the provision would
require the Secretary, through the Senior Agency Official, to
designate an official to be responsible and accountable for the
Department's efforts to create an integrated insider threat
detection and prevention capability. The provision also calls
for the creation of an Executive Committee, composed of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, and the Chief Information Officer, to support the
Senior Agency Official to ensure the cooperation of all
components of DOD.
Finally, the provision would require the Senior Agency
Official to establish a plan by September 30, 2015, to develop
the insider threat capability.
Migration of Distributed Common Ground System of Department of the Army
to an open system architecture (sec. 1655)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army, within 3 years of the date of enactment
of this Act, to migrate the Distributed Common Ground System
(DCGS), including the so-called Red Disk or any successor to
Red Disk under development at the Army Intelligence and
Security Command (INSCOM), to an open systems architecture. The
provision would require that the DCGS open systems architecture
be compliant with the Defense Intelligence Information
Enterprise open architecture.
Migrating the Army DCGS to an open system would enable the
rapid, competitive acquisition and integration of any DCGS
segment, upgrades to any portion of the system, and new
applications. Migration would also enable competition for
sustainment, which would speed up the modernization cycle,
improve capabilities, and lower costs. The committee notes that
INSCOM has briefed the committee on plans to make the Red Disk
next-generation DCGS upgrade to DCGS an open systems
architecture. This provision is consistent with actions the
committee recommends on open systems approaches to systems
acquisition elsewhere in this bill and report.
Budget Items
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites
For fiscal year 2015, the budget proposes $87.0 million for
the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program to store satellite
#20. The committee recommends a reduction by $87.0 million as
excess to need.
Mobile Ground System
For fiscal year 2015, the budget proposes $319.5 million
for the Space Based Infrared System, PE 0604441F. The committee
recommends an increase of $5 million for the Mobile Ground
System to meet a U.S. Strategic Command unfunded requirement to
procure spare parts and address obsolescence issues with the
Nation's sole survivable missile attack and warning system.
Space Based Infrared System
The fiscal year 2015 Research Development Test and
Evaluation budget request for the Space Based Infrared System,
PE 0604441F, is $319.1 million. The committee recommends a
reduction of $5.0 million to the hosted payloads and $8.0
million to the wide field of view test bed as excess to need.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle engine development
The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to
PE number 0604853F to be used in the development of a liquid
rocket engine consistent with section 1629.
Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite
The fiscal year 2015 Research Development Test and
Evaluation budget request for the Advanced Extremely High
Frequency satellite, PE 0605431F, is $314.4 million. The
committee recommends a reduction of $9.0 million to interim
contractor support and $7.0 million to the protected satellite
communication demonstration as excess to need.
Operationally Responsive Space
The fiscal Year 2015 budget requested no funding for the
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program office. On
February 25, 2014, the ORS Executive Committee adopted the U.S.
Strategic Command's recommendation for ORS-5 to be a low-cost,
short-time-to-launch space situational awareness payload which
will launch in fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends $20.0
million to support activities in fiscal year 2015 in developing
this payload and other mission needs. The committee expects the
Air Force to budget for the follow-on activities in fiscal year
2016.
The Secretary of the Air Force informed the committee on
April 14, 2014, that the ORS program would be integrated in the
Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) in order to use the ORS
program office's unique streamlined acquisition authorities to
``maintain expertise in the rapid fielding of space
capabilities in a manner similar to that of the Air Force's
Rapid Capabilities Office.''
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
brief the congressional defense committees within 180 days
after the enactment of this Act on how details of the ORS
program office and its personnel will be integrated into the
SMC and the programs that SMC plans to use in the ORS office
with its unique mandate and acquisition authorities to execute
programs ordered to drive down the cost of satellite payloads
and launch.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force, Navy, National Nuclear Security Administration collaboration
on strategic systems
The committee notes that the Air Force and the Navy have
established an Executive Steering Group to identify
opportunities and oversee investments for collaborative
sustainment and modernization of strategic systems. The
committee commends Air Force and Navy strategic programs
leadership for pursuing collaborative efforts aggressively,
thereby expanding their joint knowledge base and capabilities,
leveraging efficiencies, and realizing cost savings in a
challenging fiscal environment.
The committee directs the Air Force, the Navy and the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to submit a
joint report to the congressional defense committees on a plan
to expand strategic systems collaboration among the military
services and the NNSA. The report shall include a description
of current collaborations among the military services on
strategic system programs, to include elements of the nuclear
triad, the conventional prompt global strike, other strategic
forces, and other matters of importance to increase commonality
and reduce cost. The Secretary of Defense will also provide a
description and assessment of any additional opportunities for
new or enhanced collaboration, including programs that may
benefit from those efforts, risks, and benefits that may be
realized by cross-service or departmental collaboration, and
the potential costs and benefits for collaborative research,
development, and production. This report shall be submitted no
later than March 1, 2015.
Ammonium Perchlorate
Ammonium perchlorate (AP) is an inorganic compound and
solid oxidizer that is critical to key weapons systems--
including the Trident II D5 missile.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
relies on a single supplier of AP. The committee also notes
that the price DOD pays for AP has increased in recent years.
In light of the fiscal constraints confronted by DOD, the
committee believes the department should seek to promote
competition in the AP supplier base that will result in DOD
paying more competitive prices for AP.
Therefore, the committee directs DOD to provide a briefing
to the congressional defense committees, no later than
September 30, 2014, on DOD's use of AP, as well as DOD's
efforts to diversify its supplier base and achieve more
competitive prices for AP.
Analysis of satellites available for open competition
For fiscal year 2015, the Air Force moved the launch
vehicle for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
geostationary orbit (GEO) Satellite 4 from a phase 1A potential
competitive launch opportunity to the 36 core block buy. The
committee understands that this satellite falls within the
launch parameters that a new entrant is capable of launching.
The committee encourages increased opportunities for
competition and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
report to the committee whether it is feasible to move the
SBIRS GEO Satellite 4 back to the phase 1A competitive
opportunities within the future years defense program (FYDP) or
any other satellite to help offset the decrease in the
allotment of open competition satellites across the FYDP.
Analytic support to cyber policy and planning
The committee reiterates its concern that the growth in the
strategic and operational importance of the cyberspace domain
has not been accompanied by parallel growth in independent,
public interest-oriented cyber policy analysis. Therefore, the
committee directs that the Principal Cyber Advisor to the
Secretary of Defense shall assess the amount and quality of
support for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Cyber Command, and the combatant commands
that is currently available from existing federally funded
research and development centers and academia in the areas of
operational integration of cyber with other military
capabilities, independent analysis of cyber defense policy,
deterrence policy, acquisition policies and practices, total
force development and management, and cyber risk and threat
assessment. The committee further directs that within 180 days
of the enactment of this Act, the Principal Cyber Advisor shall
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees of
the conclusions and recommendations of this assessment.
Assessment of cost of Space Situational Awareness system
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
to estimate the cost of the space situational awareness system
over the current future years defense program. The assessment
shall be in the form of a briefing due no later than February
28, 2015.
Authorities and responsibilities of the Department of Defense Inspector
General
The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-259) established the defense intelligence
agencies of the Department of Defense (DOD) as ``designated
Federal entities'' under section 8G of the Inspector General
Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452), as amended, which under that
Act provides a statutory foundation for the Inspectors General
(IGs) of those agencies. Since that change was implemented, the
IGs of these DOD components have questioned the authority of
the DOD (IG) to supervise their activities.
The committee supports strong and independent IGs,
especially in the intelligence agencies that are involved in
sensitive classified activities. However, the independence the
committee values is from undue influence of the officials
managing the agencies they oversee, not from reasonable
supervision by the DOD IG.
Section 8 of the IG Act of 1978 itself states that the DOD
IG shall ``provide policy direction for audits and
investigations relating to fraud, waste, and abuse and program
effectiveness; develop policy, monitor and evaluate program
performance, and provide guidance with respect to all
Department activities relating to criminal investigation
programs; monitor and evaluate the adherence of Department
auditors to internal audit, contract audit, and internal review
principles, policies, and procedures; [and] develop policy,
evaluate program performance, and monitor actions taken by all
components of the Department in response to contract audits,
internal audits, internal review reports, and audits conducted
by the Comptroller General of the United States.'' The
committee concludes that the law clearly provides that the DOD
IG has the authority to direct and set audit and investigative
policy across all DOD components, including the designated
Federal entities.
In April 2012, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued an
updated DOD Directive (DODD 5106.01) on the DOD IG, which
reaffirms the role of the DOD IG as ``the principal advisor to
the Secretary of Defense on all audit and criminal
investigative matters and for matters relating to the
prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in the programs and
operations of the DOD.'' This role includes the responsibility
to provide ``policy and direction for audits, investigations,
evaluations, and inspections; monitor and give particular
regard to the activities of the internal audit, investigations,
evaluation, inspection, and IG units of DOD Components . . .
with a view toward avoiding duplication and ensuring effective
coverage, coordination, and cooperation; [and] audit, evaluate,
monitor, and review the programs, policies, procedures, and
functions of the DOD Intelligence Components to ensure that
intelligence resources, including those funded through the
National Intelligence Program, are properly managed.'' This
Directive also clearly establishes the authority and
responsibility of the DOD IG to set policy for audits and
investigations across DOD, and to coordinate with all component
IGs to achieve effective oversight.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, the heads
of the defense intelligence agencies, the DOD IG, and the
defense intelligence agency IGs to develop a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that sets forth the relationship of the
component IGs to the DOD IG, consistent with the requirements
of section 8 of the IG Act and DODD 5106.01. The committee
expects to receive regular updates on the progress of this
effort.
Electro-optical infrared capabilities for the follow on weather
satellite
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
brief the congressional defense committees on whether other
technical capabilities, agencies, and/or countries can provide
or fulfill the military requirement for electro-optical and
infrared weather imaging. This briefing should address the
cost-effectiveness and performance record of the various
options as well as how the Air Force intends to avoid reliance
on non-allied foreign sources. This briefing shall occur no
later than September 30, 2014.
Foreign interest in United States air and missile defense technology
In light of the growing regional missile threats around the
world, the committee believes it is important for the
Department of Defense to work closely with allied and partner
nations to help them establish and improve their air and
missile defense capabilities.
Therefore, no later than November 1, 2014, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report detailing the nations that have approached the United
States Government with requests to acquire, improve, or expand
air and missile defense systems and capabilities--including
lower-tier air and missile defense systems and capabilities.
This report should also describe the maturity of these
discussions and progress toward securing the appropriate export
control permissions with each nation that has expressed
interest. The report shall be unclassified, but may include a
classified annex.
Information assurance and certified workforce training
The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for
its ongoing efforts related to providing certifications to
personnel responsible for Information Assurance (IA) activities
pursuant to DOD Directive 8570, which establishes the policy
and assigns the responsibilities for Department IA training,
certification, and workforce management. The committee also
understands the importance of testing to verify skills, which
raises the effectiveness of information technology
professionals and can help identify gaps in training. The
committee therefore encourages the DOD to continue to evolve
the performance-based assessment of skills and progression
toward certification.
Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System
The committee is encouraged that the March 2014 ``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'' resolves many
aspects of coproduction of Iron Dome components and
interceptors in the United States. The committee is aware that
the Missile Defense Agency and the Israeli Missile Defense
Organization have entered into this international agreement to
govern how the United States will support up to $605.8 million
from fiscal years 2013 to 2015 for Iron Dome.
Given the significant U.S. taxpayers' investment in the
Iron Dome 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.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees, not later than November 1,
2014, on its ongoing efforts to resolve details and agreements
required for U.S.-based coproduction of Iron Dome technology,
including coproduction of parts, components, and all-up-rounds
of the Iron Dome system.
Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor
The committee notes that U.S military forces and those of
our allies confront a growing threat from cruise missiles,
large caliber rockets, tactical ballistic missiles, and
unmanned aerial vehicles.
The committee also notes the completion of the Joint Land
Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS)
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program in
December 2013.
The JLENS is a bi-static tethered aerostat system intended
to provide persistent elevated sensor data to detect, track,
and help defeat airborne threats, including cruise missiles,
manned and unmanned aircraft, and surface moving targets,
including swarming boats.
Based on the successful EMD and the potential of JLENS to
meet combatant commander requirements in varying areas of
responsibility, the committee supports the budget request for
JLENS through the Army's Aerostat Joint Project Office.
The committee also supports the decision of the Department
of Defense to deploy a JLENS orbit to the National Capital
Region (NCR) to demonstrate its capabilities in a 3-year
operational exercise in support of the North American Aerospace
Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command for their NCR
homeland defense mission, to improve the system, and to
evaluate its potential ability to meet the requirements of
other combatant commanders.
The committee notes that the report accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Senate
Report 113-44), directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees, not later than
90 days after the initiation of the JLENS operational exercise
demonstration, identifying the data and analyses that it plans
to use from the demonstration to guide potential future
acquisition and deployment decisions for JLENS. The committee
continues to believe that it is important for DOD to have
clearly defined objectives and metrics for this demonstration
before it begins and looks forward to submission of this
report.
The committee notes that several combatant commands have
expressed an interest in a persistent, elevated sensor capable
of supporting cruise missile defense. The committee also notes
that an incomplete set of equipment for a second JLENS orbit
remains in long-term storage in the United States. As a result,
the committee requests a briefing no later than October 30,
2014, regarding the status of the additional JLENS equipment
and the options and considerations for a potential deployment
of a second JLENS orbit to another combatant command in a
future fiscal year.
Mobile User Objective System Ground Terminals
The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) is a satellite
constellation that will replace the aging Ultra High Frequency
Follow On (UFO) satellite constellation. The committee has a
number of ongoing concerns. First, whether the MUOS
constellation becomes fully operational in time to replace the
aging UFO fleet of satellites. The second issue of concern is
the fielding of a valid terminal to fully utilize the MUOS
waveform. Third, questions remain about the end-to-end system
integration of the ground stations to satellites and the ground
terminals, including associated costs. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to report, no later than October 31,
2014, on the status of launching the MUOS satellites in order
to replace the UFO fleet, the end-to-end integration of the
MUOS system, the ability to procure user terminals meeting the
MUOS waveform, and whether existing software defined or other
terminals can be upgraded to utilize the waveform at a lower or
comparable cost.
New START Treaty Force Structure
The committee supports the nuclear force structure proposed
by the President to meet the requirements of the New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START), as described in the report
provided to Congress pursuant to section 1042 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81). In particular, the committee supports the decision to
maintain, in an operational status, the 50 active
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos that will be
emptied as a result of the reductions. In testimony before the
committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittee on 5 March, 2014,
Major General Garrett Harencak described the important
infrastructure sustainment benefits associated with this
posture and explained that, ``We need to keep the silos in a
warm status so [that] we maintain a continuity between them and
the communication aspect that was built for many, many, many
good reasons back in the [19]60s. . . . It'd be my highest
recommendation.''
Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, in his April 8, 2014,
testimony before the House Armed Services' Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces also noted that the new force structure ``is
very much in concert with the course that has been set as we
move towards the Ohio replacement program of 12 submarines with
16 tubes. So, the deactivation of four tubes on Ohio is very
consistent with the long-range decision that has already been
made by the Secretary of Defense and the administration.''
The committee appreciates that the proposed schedule allows
the Department of Defense to implement the required reductions
efficiently and provides sufficient time to accommodate
unforeseen delays.
The committee notes that the Air Force intends to
distribute empty silos across the ICBM force. The committee
supports this approach that will maximize the Air Force's
ability to maintain all silos in the inventory as well as
provide the highest possible mission-capable rates.
Ohio Replacement Program
The committee remains committed to the full funding of the
Ohio-class Replacement Program (ORP) and supports the research
and development activities budgeted in fiscal year 2015. The
committee notes that in fiscal year 2014, the Department of
Energy budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
and specifically the Naval Reactors Office, fell below
requested levels. One reported impact of this shortfall was
insufficient funding to support a planned capital equipment
procurement for High Performance Computers (HPC) that are
necessary to complete the reactor core design for ORP. In
testimony before this committee, Chief of Naval Operations,
Admiral Jonathan Greenert, stated, ``The program has to stay on
track. We have no slack in this program,'' and he has since
indicated the possibility of a military interdepartmental
purchase request (MIPR) to reconcile the Naval Reactors funding
shortfall.
The committee remains concerned that a lack of funding for
essential equipment and technologies for nuclear reactor core
development could further delay this critical program and
jeopardize the future of our sea-based strategic deterrent.
Therefore, the committee requires the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the
status of the ORP, the status of the Naval Reactors Office's
reactor core development, and any collaborative efforts with
the Department of Energy to address the identified funding
shortfalls no later than 90 days after the enactment of this
Act.
Processes for the secure provision of sensitive compartmented
information to congressional committees
The Secretary of Defense shall provide a briefing and
accompanying supporting material to the congressional defense
committees no later than September 30, 2014, explaining the
process for coordinating security arrangements to convey
sensitive compartmented information from the Department of
Defense to the congressional defense committees, including in-
person briefings and meetings, secure telephone conversations,
physical transmission of documents, and electronic
communications. The briefing shall include the requirements and
processes for exchanging and verifying accesses and clearances,
confirming identities and identifications, the receipting of
documents, arranging the use of secure rooms and SCIFs, and any
other processes or procedures relating to this topic.
Projected workload at wide band satellite operations centers
The Army is the designated scheduling agent for all
Department of Defense owned wide band communications satellites
whose workload continues to increase. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to project the workload requirements for
scheduling wideband communication over the next 10 years
consistent with the mix of media study. The report shall be due
no later than February 28, 2015.
Replacement of the Mission Planning and Analysis System
The U.S. Strategic Command's Mission Planning and Analysis
system (MPAS) is a 1980s tool that supports the command's
responsibilities for strategic deterrence planning and global
strike. MPAS uses outdated interfaces and programming languages
that are becoming unsupportable. The U.S. Strategic Command is
updating MPAS through increments 4 and 5 of the Integrated
Strategic Planning and Analysis Network (ISPAN). The committee
directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review
the ongoing effort to update MPAS against generally accepted
program planning and cost guidelines and whether ISPAN
increments 4 and 5 will resolve the documented deficiencies of
MPAS. The GAO shall present their findings in the form of a
briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than
January 31, 2015.
Report on Intercontinental Ballistic Missile readiness
In order to inform the ongoing Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile (ICBM) guidance modernization effort, the Secretary of
the Air Force shall direct the Air Force Scientific Advisory
Board to report on the range of inertial navigation and
guidance technologies, including those currently used, that
will give a range of accuracy and time to launch so as to
determine whether it is possible to maintain the same strategic
alert posture with additional decision time associated with
launch. Additionally, in the course of this review the Board
shall determine whether it is necessary to maintain the same
alert status as is used today.
The current inertial navigation and guidance systems are
based on 1970s mechanical gyroscopic technologies, which must
be continuously powered and rotated to maintain their alert
status. These systems are aging out due to material wear and
are in need of a technology refresh. There are more modern
technologies that are solid state in nature, that do not
mechanically wear as much, and where it is possible to achieve
the same alert posture while giving more time for senior
leadership decision making. This increase in senior leadership
decision making time is consistent with the 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR), which in an effort to strengthen
Presidential Decision Time, notes that efforts should be made
to ``maximize the time available to the President to consider
whether to authorize the use of nuclear weapons,'' including
``[f]urther strengthening the U.S. command and control system
to maximize presidential decision time in a nuclear crisis.''
Technologies have advanced considerably since the inertial
guidance and navigation systems of the 1970s that required
mechanical systems to gyroscopically spin continuously and
should be explored consistent with the NPR.
As noted earlier, this report requirement shall not be
construed to suggest or recommend a change to the U.S.
strategic force alert posture for the ICBM. The 2010 NPR
considered the possibility of reducing alert rates for ICBMs
``and concluded that such steps could reduce crisis stability
by giving an adversary the incentive to attack before `re-
alerting' was complete.'' The existing strategic alert posture
was again reaffirmed in the 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy of
the United States.
The report shall include technology readiness level and
cost to implement. The report shall be due to the congressional
defense committees no later than January 31, 2015.
Report on the Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas
The committee finds the following:
(1) The capability provided by the nuclear capable,
air launched cruise missile (ALCM) is critical to
maintaining a credible and effective air-delivery leg
of the triad, preserving the ability to respond to
geopolitical and technical surprise, and reassuring
U.S. allies through credible extended deterrence.
(2) Additionally, the committee has received
testimony that relying on a single weapons storage
areas (WSA) has negative operational impacts and could
increase the burdens placed on other legs of the triad
in an operational situation.
(3) The committee has previously supported that
enhanced WSA could improve the resiliency of the bomber
force, provide redundancy in a critical national
security mission, and reduce operational risk.
(4) The committee notes that the Air Force has
completed the report, ``Reconstituting Air Force
Weapons Storage Areas,'' as requested in the committee
report (S. Rpt. 113-44) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66).
(5) In its report, the Air Force acknowledged that it
currently does not have a funded project to
reconstitute a second WSA for ALCMs.
(6) 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.
(7) However, the Air Force did not include in its
report 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. Rpt. 113-44.
The committee directs that no later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, that the Secretary of the Air Force, in
coordination with the Commander of the United States Strategic
Command, shall submit to the congressional defense committees
the following information on the plan for the WSA
Recapitalization Corporate Initiative including:
(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-savings and
benefits of advances in physical and security
surveillance technologies; and
(4) A validation of requirements.
Review of GPS III Operational Ground Control
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
to review the cost, scope, and schedule of the Global
Positioning System (GPS) III Operational Control System (OCX)
including synchronization with the launch of the GPS III
constellation with recommendations for improvement. An interim
briefing shall be given to the congressional defense committees
no later September 30, 2014, with a final briefing no later
than February 28, 2015.
Science and technology talent options for the Missile Defense Agency
The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
is faced with a myriad of highly complex technical challenges
in executing its designated missions, both in the near- and
far-term. These technical challenges will require the agency to
leverage the best technical talent and resources available in
government, industry, small businesses, and academia. The
committee notes that MDA has the authority to partner with high
quality technical organizations through a number of pathways,
including--but not limited to--grants, cooperative agreements,
contracts, technology prizes, access to Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and government
laboratories, establishment of and access to University
Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and the Small Business
Innovative Research program. These can all serve to harness the
best innovative minds and ideas in the Nation, and engage with
and build the technical workforce that can help address MDA's
significant technology challenges in the future.
The committee encourages MDA to consider all of these
options to address its technical goals. The committee directs
MDA to develop a report describing its strategy and actions to
address it long-range science and technology challenges,
including its engagement strategy with universities, small
businesses, UARCs, FFRDCs, and government laboratories, and to
submit the report to the congressional defense committees not
later than December 1, 2014.
Security of Department of Defense industrial control systems
In March 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) reissued two
DOD Instructions related to cybersecurity: 8500.01, ``Risk
Management Framework for DOD Information Technology'' and
8510.01, ``Cybersecurity''. These Instructions for the first
time mandated specific actions to secure industrial control
systems (ICS) through the implementation of a Risk Management
Framework. In addition, the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L))
issued a memorandum in March 2014 that focused on the security
of ICS. This memorandum provided access across DOD to a
standard security assessment tool developed by the Department
of Homeland Security, and established an enterprise-wide
working group to develop design criteria for new ICS equipment
and systems.
The newly issued Instructions require DOD components to
inventory and register all ICS, and apply to them the new risk
assessment methodology. The committee recognizes that this
important initiative is just getting underway, but seeks to
ensure that it is implemented immediately. Therefore, the
committee directs that the USD(AT&L) and the Chief Information
Officer provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees within 1 year of the enactment of this Act, on the
results of the inventory, along with an assessment of the risks
from ICS vulnerabilities to critical DOD operational missions.
Standing and Implementation of Nuclear Forces
The committee believes that the United States must maintain
its commitment to ensuring the safety, security, reliability,
and credibility of its nuclear forces. The committee supports
longstanding principles of strategic military balance including
that effective deterrence requires forces of sufficient size
and flexibility to attack selectively a range of military and
other targets yet enable us to hold back a significant and
enduring reserve. Each leg of the nuclear triad delivery
systems continues to provide unique contributions to stability.
As the overall force shrinks, their unique values become more
prominent. The committee is concerned that since 2011, nuclear
modernization efforts have encountered funding setbacks, cost
overruns, schedule delays, mismanagement, and reductions in
scope. The committee supports the view established within the
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review that the United States nuclear
triad has no equivalent mission.
The committee requests the Department of Defense (DOD) to
report back to the committee on the additional investments that
will be needed in future years to avoid a militarily
significant disruption to the nuclear enterprise.
(1) DOD should incorporate how the possible return of
sequester-level budgets in the next fiscal year would
impact the Secretary of Defense's priorities for
nuclear modernization programs; and
(2) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and corresponding
commanders, should report under what conditions the
June 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy meets our
national security objectives.
Update on nuclear command, control, and communications systems
acquisition
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
to update recent prior assessments of nuclear command, control,
and communications acquisition programs with an interim
briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than
September 30, 2014, and a final briefing no later than January
31, 2015.
TITLE XVII--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY
National commission on the future of the Army (secs. 1701-1709)
The committee recommends a provision that would create a
commission to study the size and force structure of the Army,
including active-duty forces, the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), and
the Army National Guard (ARNG). The committee is aware that the
Army and the Department of Defense continue their analysis,
course of action development, and decisionmaking process with
respect to the distribution of reductions of both end strength
and force structure necessary to achieve the savings required
by the Budget Control Act of 2011. The committee believes that
under these circumstances an independent and objective review
of Army size and force structure by a national commission is
worthwhile. The commission would be required to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees not later than February
1, 2016.
The provision would prohibit the use of funds in fiscal
year 2015 to reduce the end strength of the regular Army, ARNG,
or USAR below the levels provided in the budget request. The
provision would also prohibit the use of funds in fiscal year
2015 to divest, retire, or transfer any AH-64 Apache aircraft
assigned to the ARNG. An exception to this aircraft
prohibition, however, would allow the transfer of up to 48
Apache aircraft from the ARNG to the regular Army.
The commission would be made up of four members appointed
by the chairman and ranking members of the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and
four members appointed by the President.
The commission would undertake a comprehensive study of the
structure of the Army and policy assumptions related to the
size and force mixture of the Army. In addition to the review
of the Army's structure, the commission would conduct a study
of plans to transfer Apache aircraft from the ARNG to the
regular Army. The commission would also evaluate the
distribution of responsibility and authority, as well as the
strategic basis or rationale, analytical methodology, and
decisionmaking process, related to the allocation of ARNG end
strength and force structure to the states and territories.
In its assessment of the Army's size and structure, the
commission should also consider the need for any changes to
existing legislation--such as the Militia Act of 1903, the
National Defense Act of 1920, the National Security Act of
1947, and the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986--that establishes
the roles and missions of the active and reserve components.
The committee notes the difficulties expressed by the
National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
associated with the Department of Defense's (DOD)
interpretation and application of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) as amended (Public Law 92-463). The
commissioners stated in their report that, ``As the Commission
proceeded with its work, it became increasingly clear that the
DOD's interpretation of FACA's purpose would have a
significant, and frequently negative, impact on the
Commission's work.'' It is apparent from the views of the
commissioners that the Department's interpretation of the
oversight safeguards intended by the FACA may have
unnecessarily complicated the conduct of their study. The
committee expects the Secretary of Defense to support the
National Commission on the Future of the Army in a balanced
manner and in a spirit consistent with congressional intent and
appropriate FACA oversight while avoiding the negative impacts
that were experienced by the Air Force Commission.
The committee is also aware that certain aspects of the
Army's ``1993 Offsite Agreement'' pertaining to reserve
component core competencies has, in part, for the last 20
years, guided its analysis and decisionmaking with respect to
reserve component force structure. This agreement, between
senior leadership of the regular Army, ARNG, USAR, and the
associations representing their members, guided the realignment
of combat arms, combat support, and combat service support
force structure between the ARNG and USAR. The agreement
provides that the ARNG should retain a mix of combat arms and
support structure while the USAR would divest its combat arms
and retain combat support and combat service support
capabilities. In this manner the core competencies of the
Army's reserve components are established: for the ARNG a
balance of combat and supporting arms, and for the USAR combat
support and service support.
By and since this agreement, therefore, the ARNG has been
and remains the reserve component within which the Army places
those combat arms capabilities to reinforce, supplement, or
compliment the combat capabilities of the active Army. The
committee notes that, as appropriate and necessary to address
the national security and support for civil authorities
requirements of the United States, there are several examples
of units and capabilities in the regular Army that are not in
the reserves, as well as units and capabilities in the reserves
that are not in the regular Army.
This system for the alignment of core capabilities among
the Army's reserve components has served the Nation, the Army,
and the domestic support and public safety needs of the states
very well ever since. The committee recognizes the success of
this agreement, as evident by the successful partnerships in
combat, security, and support missions by active and reserve
servicemembers in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The
committee encourages the Army to continue to maintain the
reserve components as an operational reserve and manage the
distribution of combat arms, combat support, and combat service
support capabilities and forces consistent with and respectful
of the intent of its ``1993 Offsite Agreement'' regarding
reserve component core competencies.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
Summary and explanation of funding tables
Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It
includes funding authorizations for the construction and
operation of military family housing as well as military
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies,
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure
accounts that fund military construction, environmental
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the
decisions in base closure rounds.
The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized
in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by
account.
The fiscal year 2015 budget requested $6.56 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$5.1 billion was requested for military construction, $1.19
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
and $270.1 million for base closure activities.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure
activities totaling $6.45 billion. The total amount authorized
for appropriations reflects the committee's continuing
commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities
and infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.''
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2017,
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $539.4 million for military construction and $429.6 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$544.8 million for military construction and $429.6 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
The budget request included $96.0 million for the third of
six planned phases of construction of a Command and Control
Facility at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. The committee understands
that all six phases are necessary to provide for a complete
facility that meets the requirements of U.S. Army Pacific.
Furthermore, the committee understands that combining the
remaining four phases into a single authorized project would
save the Army significant military construction funding and
accelerate facility construction by up to 4 years.
Therefore, the committee recommends authorization of $311.4
million for the remaining four phases of the Command and
Control Facility at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. This authorization
assumes at least 10 percent savings will be achieved through
construction and contracting efficiencies. Consistent with
these efficiencies, the committee recommends an authorization
of appropriations for fiscal year 2015 of $86.4 million for the
first increment of this project. The committee believes that it
is inappropriate to phase, rather than increment, large
military construction projects when each distinct phase does
not fully meet the requirements of the user and directs the
Army to refrain from requesting similarly phased projects in
the future.
The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of
other priorities and notes that the Army's military
construction request for fiscal year 2015 is 52 percent less
than what was requested for fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in
light of savings achieved by incrementally funding large
military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, the
committee recommends $15.0 million for a Consolidated Shipping
Center at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, the Army's top
unfunded military construction priority.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the active component of the
Army for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Army for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active-duty
component of the Army. The state list contained in this report
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2004 project
(sec. 2104)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B
of Public Law 108-136) for construction of an Explosives
Research and Development Loading Facility at Picatinny Arsenal,
New Jersey.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013
projects (sec. 2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239), for construction of an Aircraft
Maintenance Hangar at Fort Drum, New York, a Battalion
Headquarters at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, a Vehicle Storage
Building at Fort McNair, District of Columbia, and a Secure
Administration/Operations Facility at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
With regard to the Secure Administration/Operations
Facility at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the committee understands
that the third phase of construction currently planned for
fiscal year 2018 is necessary to provide a complete facility
that meets the requirements of the Army. Furthermore, the
committee understands that modifying the authorization for the
second phase of construction to include the third phase of
construction, as recommended by the committee in the provision,
would save the Army at least $11.0 million in construction
costs, accelerate completion of the facility by 18 months, and
avoid at least $16.0 million in operation and maintenance costs
that would no longer be necessary for leased facilities. The
committee believes that it is inappropriate to phase, rather
than increment, large military construction projects when each
distinct phase does not fully meet the requirements of the user
and therefore directs the Army to refrain from requesting
similarly phased projects in the future.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec.
2106)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1,
2015, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is
later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
2107)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2012 authorization for seven projects 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.
Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United States Military
Academy, New York (sec. 2108)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to certify to the congressional defense
committees that the Secretary intends to award a contract for
the renovation of MacArthur Long Barracks concurrent with
assuming beneficial occupancy of the renovated MacArthur Short
Barracks before obligating or expending funds for construction
of increment 3 of the Cadet Barracks at the United States
Military Academy, New York.
Limitation on funding for family housing construction at Camp Walker,
Republic of Korea (sec. 2109)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of funds authorized for
construction of military family housing units at Camp Walker,
Republic of Korea (ROK), until 30 days following the delivery
of a report to the congressional defense committees validating
on-post housing requirements in the ROK, including Camp Walker
and Camp Humphries, and a plan for meeting such requirements.
As outlined in the committee's April 2013 report titled
``Inquiry Into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support
the U.S. Military Presence Overseas,'' the annual cost of
supporting U.S. troops in the ROK is more than $3.0 billion
each year. The ROK contributes funding to support U.S. military
presence in the country, known as Special Measures Agreement
(SMA) funds, which can be used to offset U.S. labor, logistics,
and construction costs.
The military family housing requirement of U.S. Forces-
Korea (USFK) is significant, largely unfunded, and has been
exacerbated in recent years because of a decision by USFK to
increase the number of authorized Command Sponsored Families
(CSF) from approximately 1,700 in 2007 to more than 4,600
today. Furthermore, the Commander of USFK has specified a
requirement that at least 40 percent of the 3,308 families
assigned to Camp Humphries live on post. In total, the
committee understands that USFK currently faces an on-post
housing deficit of 1,021 homes at Camp Walker and Camp
Humphries that would require at least $530.0 million in
military construction to resolve.
The committee is concerned that the military family housing
requirements in the ROK are unaffordable in the current budget
environment and believes that USFK should revalidate its CSF
and on-post housing requirements. If such requirements are to
remain valid, the committee believes that USFK should look at
alternative sources of funding, to include using SMA funds, to
satisfy all or a significant portion of the housing
requirement. The committee believes USFK should also consider
reengaging with the ROK Government to determine whether funds
set aside for low-priority Yongsan Relocation Plan projects
could be reallocated for family housing. The committee believes
that SMA funds used for construction of facilities must be
prioritized to ensure lower priority projects are not funded
before higher priority projects, such as military family
housing.
Furthermore, the committee notes that section 2807 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66), as clarified elsewhere in this bill, requires that
all future military construction projects funded using in-kind
payments and in-kind contributions pursuant to bilateral
agreements with partner nations be submitted for congressional
authorization in the Military Construction Authorization Act.
The committee reiterates that this provision applies to ROK-
funded construction under the new SMA signed February 2, 2014,
and all future SMAs or bilateral agreements that allow for in-
kind military construction.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.02 billion for military construction and $370.4 million
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
year 2015.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$993.2 million for military construction and $370.4 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
The budget request included $120.1 million for a Center for
Cyber Studies Building in Annapolis, Maryland. The committee
understands the Navy would be unable to expend the full amount
of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $90.1
million reduction.
The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of
other priorities and notes that the Navy's military
construction request for fiscal year 2015 is 40 percent less
than what was requested for fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in
light of savings achieved by incrementally funding large
military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, the
committee recommends $13.8 million for a Regional Ship
Maintenance Support Facility at Kitsap, Washington, and $50.7
million for a Radio Battalion Complex at Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, the top unfunded military construction priorities of
the Navy and Marine Corps, respectively.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal
year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Navy for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2015 to improve existing Navy family
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2015. This
provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount
authorized for military construction and family housing
projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the
Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2205)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1666), for construction of a
Double Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Yuma, Arizona, an
Infantry Squad Defense Range at Camp Pendleton, California, and
a Crab Island Security Enclave at Kings Bay, Georgia.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project
(sec. 2206)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66), for construction of Small Arms Ranges at
Yorktown, Virginia.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 projects (sec.
2207)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for two projects 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.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
2208)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2012 authorization for seven projects until October
1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever
is later.
Item of Special Interest
Quarterly reports on Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters restoration
The committee strongly supports the Navy's effort to
restore the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Headquarters at
the Washington Navy Yard following the tragic shooting incident
that occurred there in September 2013. The committee believes
the project is important to reestablish a sense of normalcy for
Navy personnel, civilians, and contractors who survived that
day and to honor those who were lost by carrying on their work.
However, the committee has concerns about the acquisition
strategy that was chosen for the restoration project. Using the
Global Contingency Construction Multiple Award Contract (GCC
MAC), the Navy awarded a competitive task order to one of the
four GCC MAC contract holders for facility stabilization, basic
repairs, and development of plans for a complete restoration of
the facility. The inclusion of restoration plans in that
initial task order appears to have locked the Navy into a sole-
source follow-on task order for the restoration of the facility
at a cost of approximately $74.0 million. The committee
recognizes that other factors, including the expedited timeline
necessary to allow NAVSEA personnel to vacate temporary and
expensive leased facilities, influenced this acquisition
strategy, but the committee is concerned that such an approach
may have prevented the Navy from considering other competitive
offers and may have resulted in additional cost for the
restoration project.
Given these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to:
(1) Provide the congressional defense committees with
a report not later than July 1, 2014, that, at a
minimum, includes the following:
(a) an explanation of the acquisition
strategy used for the renovation project;
(b) the cost and schedule of the renovation
project;
(c) an accounting of and explanation for any
deviation from the original cost and schedule
for the renovation project; and (d) a
description of any lessons learned from the
acquisition strategy used for this project and
how they are being applied to improve future
GCC MAC contacting actions.
(2) Provide the congressional defense committees with
a report every 90 days after the initial report in
paragraph (1) above and until completion of the NAVSEA
Headquarters restoration project that, at a minimum,
includes an accounting of, and explanation for, any
deviation from the original cost and schedule for the
renovation project.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $811.7 million for military construction and $327.7 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$846.2 million for military construction and $327.7 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of
other priorities and notes that the Air Force's military
construction request for fiscal year 2015 is 30 percent less
than what was requested for fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in
light of savings achieved by incrementally funding large
military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, the
committee recommends $34.4 million for a Corrosion Control and
Composite Repair Shop at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, the Air
Force's top unfunded military construction priority.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2015.
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active-duty
component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this
report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized
at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2008 project
(sec. 2303)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B
of Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 515), for acquisition of land
at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec.
2304)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1,
2015, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is
later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2012 authorization for two projects 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.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $2.06 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies, $38.7 million for chemical demilitarization
construction, and $61.1 million for family housing for the
defense agencies for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.86 billion for military construction, $38.7 million for
chemical demilitarization construction, and $61.1 million for
family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2015.
The budget request included $259.7 million for the Medical
Center Replacement at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany. The
committee understands the Department of Defense would be unable
to expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore,
recommends a $200.0 million reduction.
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the defense agencies for
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation
projects. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-
by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the military construction and family housing
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction
for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also provide an
overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the defense
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec.
2404)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for three projects 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.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
2405)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2012 authorization for six projects 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.
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization
Authorizations
Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization
construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the chemical
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2015. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project
(sec. 2412)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2401(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B
of Public Law 106-65), as most recently amended by section 2412
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383), for construction of a
munitions demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot,
Kentucky.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $199.7 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2015 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program (NSIP).
The committee understands that the NSIP has expended prior-
year funds more slowly than anticipated and does not require
the full requested amount for fiscal year 2015. Therefore, the
committee recommends a $25.0 million reduction.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due
to the United States for construction previously financed by
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations of $174.7 million for the U.S. contribution to
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program for fiscal year 2015.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $426.5 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2015 for facilities for the guard and reserve
components.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$532.1 million for military construction in fiscal year 2015
for facilities for the guard and reserve components. The
detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state
list table included in this report.
The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of
other priorities and notes that the Department's military
construction request for the guard and reserve components for
fiscal year 2015 is 38 percent less than what was requested for
fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in light of savings achieved by
incrementally funding large military construction projects
elsewhere in the bill, the committee recommends $5.0 million
for a Readiness Center in Alamogordo, New Mexico; $13.2 million
for a Consolidated Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
at Fort Smith Municipal Airport, Arkansas; $25.0 million for an
Army Reserve Center in Riverside, California; $47.9 million for
a Joint Reserve Intelligence Center in Everett, Washington; and
$14.5 million for a Guardian Angel Operations Facility at
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. Each of these projects
were identified as the top unfunded military construction
priorities of the respective guard and reserve components.
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2602)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal
year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2604)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2605)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the reserve component military construction
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2015 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2012 projects (sec. 2611)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) for construction of Army Reserve Centers
in Kansas City, Kansas, and Attleboro, Massachusetts. The
provision would also extend the authorization for these
projects 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.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project
(sec. 2612)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2601 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239), for construction of a Combined
Maintenance Shop at Stormville, New York.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec.
2613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1,
2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
Summary and explanation of tables
The budget request included $270.1 million for the ongoing
cost of environmental remediation and other activities
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993,
1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. The
committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding
recommendations are contained in the state list table included
in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure
activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account (sec. 2701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure
(BRAC) round (sec. 2702)
The committee recommends a provision that would make clear
that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a
future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Elsewhere in
the bill, the committee recommends a reduction of $4.8 million
for BRAC planning activities.
HUBZones (sec. 2703)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 632 of title 15, United States Code, to expand the area
around former military installations closed under the Base
Realignment and Closure process that can be considered for
purposes of satisfying employee residency requirements under
the HUBZone program and would extend the period of
applicability from 5 to 8 years.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Clarification of authorized use of in-kind payments and in-kind
contributions (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
requirement of section 2687a of title 10, United States Code,
as amended by section 2807 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66),
that military construction projects built with in-kind payments
or in-kind contributions required by bilateral agreements be
specifically authorized by law.
The committee released a report in April 2013 titled
``Inquiry into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support
the U.S. Military Presence Overseas'' that, among other things,
found that in-kind payments and in-kind contributions from
partner nations to support the overseas presence of U.S.
military forces in Germany, South Korea, and Japan have been
used to fund questionable military construction projects.
The committee is disappointed that the Department of
Defense (DOD) has chosen to interpret the requirements of
section 2807 of Public Law 113-66 as applying only to military
construction projects funded with in-kind residual value
payments made by foreign governments in exchange for the return
of U.S. facilities, despite the clear intent of Congress that
the provision apply to any military construction projects built
using in-kind payments or in-kind contributions pursuant to a
bilateral agreement.
The DOD interpretation is surprising given the statement in
the November 18, 2013, Statement of Administration Policy that
section 2807 applied to ``military construction projects
provided pursuant to bilateral agreements with host countries
or as in-kind payment of residual value.'' Further, the Acting
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment gave no indication that there were questions about
the provision's scope of applicability when he pledged DOD
would comply with the law in his testimony before the committee
on April 2, 2014.
The committee reiterates its intent that section 2807 of
Public Law 113-66 and the clarifications made by this provision
apply to bilateral agreements including, but not limited to,
the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) with the Republic of Korea
signed February 2, 2014 and any successor SMA agreements, the
U.S.-Korea Land Partnership Plan, and residual value payments
in-kind for the return of facilities to Germany and elsewhere.
This provision would exclude projects built using voluntary in-
kind payments or in-kind contributions, including those under
the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program, since they are not
required by a bilateral agreement.
Given that DOD has chosen to interpret the requirements of
section 2807 of Public Law 113-66 in a manner inconsistent with
congressional intent, the committee directs the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment to
notify the congressional defense committees at least 30 days
prior to the initiation of any military construction project
built for DOD personnel outside the United States that is not
specifically authorized by law or that is funded with other
than appropriated dollars during fiscal year 2014.
Residential building construction standards (sec. 2802)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow for
residential buildings designed and constructed using funds
authorized by this bill to meet an above code green building
standard or rating system to use the ICC 700 National Green
Building Standard, the LEED Green Building Standard System, or
an equivalent protocol.
Modification of minor military construction authority for projects to
correct deficiencies that are life-, health-, or safety-
threatening (sec. 2803)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the maximum amount of unspecified minor military construction
funding that can be used to correct facility deficiencies that
threaten the life, safety, or health of personnel from $3.0
million to $4.0 million. The committee recommends an increase
in this threshold to reflect its view that life, safety, and
health deficiencies are at least equal to, if not more
important than, laboratory revitalization for which the
unspecified minor military construction threshold is $4.0
million.
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and
maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas
outside the United States (sec. 2804)
The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the
United States for an additional year.
Limitation on construction projects in European Command area of
responsibility (sec. 2805)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense or a secretary of a military
department from awarding a contract for any new military
construction and family housing project, with certain
exceptions, in the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) 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 (EICA), have been
determined to be of an enduring nature, and most effectively
meet military requirements at the authorized location.
The committee understands that the proposed Joint
Intelligence Analysis Complex (JIAC) consolidation at Royal Air
Force Croughton, United Kingdom, would be expected to result in
annual recurring savings of approximately $74.0 million, an
approximately 4.5 year payback on the cost of construction, and
allow for the divestment of 21 dispersed and aging facilities
that do not meet current requirements. Furthermore, the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force testified before the committee on
April 10, 2014, on the operational benefits of consolidation,
saying ``There's some great benefits to this program from an
intelligence perspective. First, is it allows U.S. European
Command and U.S. Africa Command, who are supported by this
Joint Analysis Center, to keep their intelligence and analysis
capability on the same continent . . . it's really important to
be in the same time zone for coordination of activity. The
second thing it does is it allows them to keep an integrated
intelligence coordination organization between European
Command, Africa Command, and NATO. A lot of the colonial powers
that know a lot more about Africa than we do are actually
connected to U.S. European Command. This allows their analysts
to be connected to U.S. Africa Command for their support. It
also lets us be interoperable and interchange and share more
intelligence with NATO.''
The committee strongly supports the JIAC consolidation and
believes projects of this type illustrate the intent of the
EICA review. The committee encourages DOD to proceed with
planning and design of the JIAC as soon as possible and
recommends that consideration be given to combining future
phases of the project to achieve cost, schedule, and
contracting efficiencies, where possible.
Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(sec. 2806)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit
funding authorized by the bill for new facilities at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the
congressional defense committees that any new construction of
facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have enduring military
value independent of a high-value detention mission.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Deposit of reimbursed funds to cover administrative expenses relating
to certain real property transactions (sec. 2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow for
reimbursements paid by non-federal persons or entities for
administrative expenses incurred by the military departments
for certain real property transactions to be merged with those
in the current appropriation, fund, or account used by the
military departments for payment of such expenses.
Renewals, extensions, and succeeding leases for financial institutions
operating on Department of Defense installations (sec. 2812)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow for
the renewal or extension of existing real estate leases in
support of an on-base financial institution without
competition.
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment
Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific region (sec. 2821)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement
the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan.
The committee remains concerned about the overall
affordability of the realignment of Marine Corps forces in the
Asia-Pacific region and believes that responsible stewardship
of taxpayers' funds requires that Congress be provided high-
confidence estimates of construction costs and schedules before
initiating construction of new facilities in support of the
realignment. In an October 24, 2013, letter to Chairman Levin,
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations,
and Environment, Mr. Dennis V. McGinn, described the Marine
Corps estimate of $12.1 billion for the proposed relocation as
``conservative and programmatic'' and noted that the estimate
``does not include any potential costs for strategic lift or
for the relocation of marines to Australia.'' While the
committee remains supportive of projects which have military
utility independent of the permanent realignment of marines to
Guam, including supporting training requirements, the committee
believes that the costs associated with the realignment need to
be accurately quantified and informed by the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision that is
expected to be complete in early 2015. Strategic lift
requirements necessary to support the distributed laydown must
also be specifically addressed before moving forward.
Additionally, the committee stresses that the requirements
of the recommended provision should be fulfilled prior to any
Department of Defense (DOD) funds being spent for the
development of civilian infrastructure, including water and
wastewater infrastructure, on Guam in preparation for the
permanent relocation of marines and their families. The
committee reiterates the congressional intent outlined in the
January 16, 2014, colloquy between Senators Durbin, Levin, and
McCain that section 8102 of the DOD Appropriations Act
contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 2014 (Public
Law 113-76) should not be interpreted to supersede section 2822
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66).
Lastly, the committee remains concerned about the
sustainment of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma on
Okinawa until the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) is
complete and operational at Camp Schwab. While actions taken by
the Governor of Okinawa late last year to allow construction of
the FRF to move forward were significant and encouraging, the
committee believes that the complexity of the project, the long
construction timeline, and the potential for additional delays
make it critical that the Marine Corps and the Government of
Japan continue to adequately sustain operations, support and
housing facilities at MCAS Futenma. The committee understands
that MCAS Futenma has identified approximately $52.0 million in
necessary facilities sustainment projects in fiscal years 2015
and 2016 and will require approximately $20.0 million on an
annual basis thereafter to meet its facilities sustainment
requirements. The committee strongly supports the commitment of
the Marine Corps of approximately $22.0 million in facilities
sustainment funding for MCAS Futenma in fiscal year 2015 and
encourages a similar level of funding each year until the FRF
is complete and operational.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Land conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (sec. 2831)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to convey approximately 1.2 acres at
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, to the Honolulu
Authority for Rapid Transportation for the public benefit of a
rail platform.
Land exchange, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2832)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to exchange real property with
Arlington County, Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia,
for purposes of expanding the contiguous land available to
Arlington National Cemetery.
The committee understands Arlington County's desire to
utilize the land south of a realigned Columbia Pike for a
variety of uses, including public transportation uses and
facilities, a museum to honor the history of Arlington County
and the Freedman's Village, and to accommodate the indoor space
and parking needs of the Air Force Memorial. The committee
encourages all interested parties to work together in the
development of their respective parcels, making sure these
objectives can be achieved while not detracting from the
dignity, honor, and solemnity of Arlington National Cemetery.
Additionally, the committee notes that Arlington County and
the Army signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January
2013 intended to serve as a guiding document for the land
exchange. The committee encourages the Army and the
Commonwealth of Virginia to enter into a similar MOU, if it
would help facilitate the land exchange.
Transfers of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. Merrill and
Lake Lanier, Georgia (sec. 2833)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to transfer approximately 10 acres
adjacent to Lake Lanier, Georgia, in exchange for the transfer
of approximately 282 acres at Camp Frank D. Merrill, Dahlonega,
Georgia, by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Gruber, Oklahoma (sec.
2834)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of property at Camp
Gruber, Oklahoma, to the Department of the Army for the purpose
of military training.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Establishment of memorial to the victims of the shooting at the
Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013 (sec. 2841)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to permit a third party to establish
and maintain a memorial dedicated to the victims of the
shooting attack at the Washington Navy Yard that occurred on
September 16, 2013. Prior to establishment of the memorial
authorized under this section, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees detailing, at a minimum, the design,
specific location, and funding dedicated to the construction
and long-term maintenance of the memorial.
Items of Special Interest
Design build contracts
The committee notes that section 3309 of title 41, United
States Code, provides for a two-phase process for selecting
contractors eligible to compete for design-build military
construction contracts. For the second competitive proposal
phase of such contract solicitations, section 3309 states that
``the maximum number specified in the solicitation shall not
exceed five unless the agency determines with respect to an
individual solicitation that a specified number greater than
five is in the Federal Government's interest and is consistent
with the purposes and objectives of the two-phase selection
process.'' The committee has been made aware of industry
concerns that the Department of Defense frequently includes
more than five eligible contractors in the second phase of
design-build solicitations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Installations and Environment to submit to the
congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 2015,
a report describing its use of the two-phased selection process
for design-build contracts, including benefits and
disadvantages, and the criteria that are used when making a
determination that inclusion of more than five contractors in
the second phase of such solicitations is in the best interests
of the Federal Government.
Laboratory revitalization
Historically, Department of Defense (DOD) laboratory
facilities and test centers have not fared well in the internal
competition for limited military construction and facility
sustainment funds. The committee notes that the maintenance and
construction of world-class research and development (R&D)
facilities is an important part of ensuring that the best new
technologies and capabilities are delivered to warfighters, and
that reports indicate that global competitors are investing
increased resources in advanced research infrastructure. The
quality of these facilities is also key to efforts to attract
and retain world-class technical talent at all experience
levels in DOD organizations.
For fiscal year 2015, the Department's budget request
includes $116.4 million for R&D facilities out of a total
military construction request of $6.56 billion. Neither the
Army nor the Air Force included any funding for R&D facilities
in their budget requests for either fiscal years 2014 or 2015.
The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of
recapitalization rates of these facilities and has provided a
number of tools, including expanded minor military construction
authorities and the ability for DOD laboratories to accumulate
funds, known as section 219, for up to 5 years for
revitalization projects up to $4.0 million in cost.
The committee also notes that section 2805 of title 10,
United States Code, required the Secretary of Defense, not
later than February 1, 2014, to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees on the use of expanded minor
military construction authority for laboratory revitalization.
The committee encourages DOD to complete and submit the
required report as soon as possible.
Privatized lodging
The committee notes the success of the Privatized Army
Lodging (PAL) program in eliminating inadequate lodging
facilities. Furthermore, the committee understands that by the
end of fiscal year 2016, the Army expects to have privatized
more than 14,000 rooms at 41 different installations. While the
committee supports the PAL initiative, it is also concerned
that some PAL hotels, in the interest of improving occupancy
rates, may have provided lodging to persons who wouldn't
otherwise have access to the installation. Such practices have
the potential to expose Department of Defense (DOD)
installations to unnecessary security threats.
Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Installations and Environment, in coordination
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations,
Energy and Environment, to conduct a review to ensure that DOD
policies regarding base access for persons utilizing privatized
lodging facilities are being consistently and appropriately
applied at all PAL locations and to provide the results of such
review to the congressional defense committees not later than
October 1, 2014.
Report on military construction unfunded requirements
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's (DOD)
military construction (MILCON) request for fiscal year 2015 is
40 percent less than was requested for fiscal year 2014. In
particular, the Army's MILCON funding request declined by 52
percent compared to its request for fiscal year 2014.
As the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations
and Environment testified on April 2, 2014, ``infrastructure
degradation is not immediate, so DOD Components are taking more
risk in the MilCon program in order to decrease risk in other
operational and training budgets. This funding will still
enable the Department to respond to warfighter requirements and
mission readiness. However, the reduced budget will have an
impact on routine operations and quality of life as projects to
improve aging workplaces are deferred.''
The committee is concerned about the significant cuts to
MILCON and their likely impact of increasing the number of
facilities in poor to failing condition. The committee is
concerned that MILCON cuts will ultimately lead to lasting
negative impacts to our military's readiness and their ability
to effectively respond to crisis abroad and at home.
These concerns apply not only to the active component, but
to the guard and reserve as well. The committee believes that
MILCON funding should be equitably distributed among each
service's active, guard, and reserve components based on a
comprehensive MILCON strategy. Furthermore, the committee would
like to have a better understanding of how National Guard
MILCON funding is prioritized and distributed among the States.
Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Installations and Environment, in coordination
with each of the Service secretaries, to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on DOD MILCON
requirements, with focus on each of the Services--active,
guard, and reserve facilities. The report shall include, at a
minimum: an accounting of unfunded MILCON requirements over the
future years defense program by Service, component, and State;
an assessment of the risk to readiness assumed by not funding
these requirements; a review of the procedures the Army and the
Air Force, in collaboration with the National Guard Bureau, use
to allocate National Guard MILCON funding among the States; and
procedures used by each Service and their components to
prioritize and allocate MILCON funding and balance risk across
the active, guard, and reserve components.
Reprogramming packages for military construction projects
While the Department of Defense (DOD) complies with
notification requirements for the use of various standing
authorities under title 10, United States Code, to construct
facilities not specifically authorized by Congress, the
committee is concerned that the DOD does not routinely submit
reprogramming requests to fund such projects, including the
source of funds to be used for the project, to the Armed
Services Committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. Rather, such reprogramming requests are
generally only submitted to the Appropriations Committees of
the Senate and the House of Representatives for approval,
thereby depriving the authorizing committees of visibility
into, and oversight of, reprogrammings of military construction
funds that had previously been authorized for other purposes.
Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to ensure that
courtesy copies of all reprogramming requests for military
construction funds be provided to the Armed Services Committees
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Scope of work variations
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has proposed modifications to section 2853 of title 10, United
States Code, that would allow the DOD to increase the scope of
a military construction project by up to 10 percent above the
amount authorized by Congress.
On February 27, 2012, the DOD Inspector General (DOD IG)
published a report titled, ``Guidance Needed to Prevent
Military Construction Projects from Exceeding the Approved
Scope of Work.'' The report found that in 3 of 17 case studies,
military construction projects carried out by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Air Force Center for Engineering
and the Environment (AFCEE) officials did not comply with
facility sizes on the congressional request for authorization.
According to the report, ``This occurred because the scope of
work variations permissible by section 2853 of title 10, United
States Code, from the congressional request for authorization
are unclear and inconsistently applied. As a result, DOD
officials do not have assurance that military construction
projects are built consistent with congressional intent and in
accordance with legislative requirements.''
The committee strongly supports the new guidance issued in
response to congressional concerns and the DOD IG report by the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment on June 24, 2013, that seeks to provide greater
clarity and consistency in defining the authorized scope for
military construction projects. The committee reiterates its
position that the cost and scope of projects identified on
Military Construction Project Data Sheets, also known as DD
Form 1391, define the authorized limits of the contract
authority for projects included in the annual National Defense
Authorization Act. Given the problems identified by the DOD IG,
the relatively recent implementation of revised guidance, and
the critical importance of thorough planning and design
activities to reduce uncertainty with regard to project cost
and scope, the committee believes it would be inappropriate to
provide additional flexibility under section 2853 of title 10,
United States Code.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Overview
Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal
year 2015, including: the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment, research and
development, nuclear weapons, naval nuclear propulsion,
environmental restoration and waste management, operating
expenses, and other expenses necessary to carry out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public
Law 95-91). This title authorizes appropriations in three
categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), (2) Defense environmental cleanup, and (3) Other
defense activities.
The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at
the Department totaled $17.842 billion, a 4.6 percent increase
above the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level. Of the total
amount requested (rounded up to the first significant decimal
point):
(1) $11.7 billion is for NNSA, of which:
(a) $8.3 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $1.5 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors; and
(d) $410.8 million is for the Office of the
Administrator;
(2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental
cleanup;
(3) $753.0 million is for other defense activities;
and
(4) $104.0 million for Idaho site-wide security.
The committee recommends $17.8 billion for atomic energy
defense activities.
Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
(1) $12.0 billion for NNSA, of which;
(a) $8.3 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $1.9 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.4 billion is for naval reactors, the
amount of the budget request; and
(d) $410.8 million is for the Office of the
Administrator, the amount of the budget
request;
(2) $4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup
activities (based on not reauthorizing the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund);
(3) $753.0 million for other defense activities, the
amount of the budget request; and
(4) $104.0 million for Idaho site-wide security.
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
total of $12.0 billion for the DOE in fiscal year 2015 for the
NNSA to carry out programs necessary to national security.
Weapons activities
The committee recommends $8.3 billion for weapons
activities, the amount of the budget request.
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $2.7 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.8 billion
for campaigns; $2.05 billion for Readiness in Technical Base
and Facilities; $233.8 million for the secure transportation
assets; $173.4 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident
response; $76.9 for counterterrorism and counter-proliferation;
and $797.8 million for defense nuclear security and the Chief
Information Officer.
The committee notes that notwithstanding the congressional
support for further modernization of the nuclear weapons
complex infrastructure and the life extension programs, the
committee urges the NNSA to find efficiencies where and
whenever possible. The ability to robust modernization funding
during a time of decreasing federal and defense budgets will be
increasingly difficult as time goes on. Good stewardship of the
funding, as well as the nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons
complex, is critical to the long-term support for and
sustainment of the projected increases.
Directed stockpile work
The committee recommends $2.7 billion for directed
stockpile work. The directed stockpile account supports work
directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-
day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering,
and certification activities to support planned life extension
programs. This account also includes fabrication and assembly
of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons
dismantlement and disposal, training, and support equipment.
The committee understands that for fiscal year 2015, the
B61 is undergoing a life extension (Mod 12) that will make one
variant reducing the overall number of such B61 systems by 50
percent and once certified operational by the Department of
Defense (DOD) will permit the elimination of the B83 weapon
system, the last Cold War era megaton class weapon.
The funding for B61-12 life extension program is proposed
at $643.0 million. The committee understands the importance of
the Mod 12 life extension but is concerned about meeting the
2020 first production unit in order to begin replacing the
system deployed by NATO allies and needs to understand what
backup plan, if any, the Departments of Defense and Energy have
to provide temporary lifetime extension of the existing weapons
if the Mod 12 schedule slips as it most likely will.
The committee understands that the NNSA has slipped the
interoperable warhead out beyond the 5-year budget window and
questions whether beginning this program at such a late stage
is cost-effective compared to simply performing a life
extension of the W88 (after it has had its fuse replaced under
the ALT 370 program) and the W78, which will be in need of a
full life extension program.
The committee also understands that the NNSA has slipped
the decision on the warhead for long-range stand-off weapon
from 1 to 3 years, which is to replace the air launched cruise
missile which will end service life in the late 2020s.
The committee continues to be concerned about overall
workflow coordination between the design laboratories and the
production facilities: Pantex, Y-12, and the Kansas City plant.
While unlikely due to the program delays this year, there could
be up to five life extension programs underway, the B61-12, the
long range stand-off weapon, the W88 fuse program, an
interoperable warhead to replace the W-88 and W78 systems, and
the ongoing W-76 program. Concurrency, funding delays, or
program slips in any one of these programs can impact the
others given they all use the three production facilities.
Finally, the committee has concern about the fragile nature
of maintaining a workload balance and key personnel at the two
physics laboratories given that the majority of the work with
the W76-1 is now at Pantex, the warhead replacement for the
long-range stand-off weapon has been delayed, and that work for
the interoperable warhead or life extensions of the W88 and W78
separately will be pushed out at least 5 years. This concern
was evident in testimony of Drs. McMillan and Goldstein who are
the directors of Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore,
respectively, when they testified before the Strategic Forces
Subcommittee on April 9, 2014. The essence of the stockpile
certification program is the ability of each laboratory to
independently assess the warheads in the current stockpile
using separate computer codes and key personnel.
Campaigns
The committee recommends $1.8 billion for campaigns,
including a $7.5 million reduction to the inertial confinement
fusion and high-yield campaign. The campaigns focus on science
and engineering efforts involving the three nuclear weapons
laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, and the
weapons production plants. Each campaign is focused on a
specific activity to support and maintain the nuclear stockpile
without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form
the scientific underpinning of the DOE's annual certification
that the stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without
nuclear weapons testing.
The committee notes that as life extension programs take on
more importance in the future years, the campaigns,
particularly those associated with the science base, will need
to sustain ongoing work and budget. The stockpile stewardship
program by all accounts has exceeded all expectations compared
to what it was envisioned in the 1990s. More importantly, it is
the seed corn to bring in the best and brightest young post-
doctorate scientists to work with senior scientists. Testimony
this year before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee by the three
weapons laboratory directors has supported the success of this
program.
The committee continues to be concerned regarding funding
for the enhanced surveillance program, which produces the
future tools to inspect the stockpile. The committee directs
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review this
program against best program practices as to whether the
program has a long-term plan and understands the full amount of
funding needed to maintain that plan. The GAO shall give an
interim briefing to the congressional defense committees no
later than October 31, 2014, with a final briefing no later
than February 28, 2015.
Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations
The committee recommends $2.0 billion for Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities Operations.
The committee understands that the projected costs for the
Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) project for replacing the
combined Y-12 plant buildings consisting of 9212, 9215, and
9204-2E has risen to $11,000 to $14,000 per square foot for a
650,000-square-foot facility. It took almost 10 years and
almost $1 billion in design to reach these projections with the
encouragement and the help of the DOD Office of Cost Analysis
and Program Evaluation. The committee understands that similar
to the replacement of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
(CMR) facility at Los Alamos, the replacement for the UPF will
occur in a smaller series of buildings to distribute cost over
time, given that some operations in buildings such as 9215 and
9204-2E are not in dire need of a new facility like the uranium
operations in building 9212, where the structure literally
dates to the Manhattan Project. The committee looks forward to
a conservative cost estimate for the first module in replacing
building 9212 but will approach it with trepidation and caution
given the past record of this project. The committee directs
the GAO to continue monitoring this project with periodic
updates to the congressional defense committees on the
direction the program is taking and recommendations for sound
program management.
Elsewhere in this bill there is a provision directing the
NNSA to establish a budget line for uranium sustainment so that
uranium capabilities, so essential to the stockpile, are not
developed using Plant Directed Research and Development funds,
which are not intended to be long-term sustainable sources of
funding for capabilities replacement at the Y-12 plant.
The committee believes that the proposal to replace lithium
production capabilities at the Y-12 plant starting in fiscal
year 2017 (project 17-D-XXX) should begin in fiscal year 2016.
Portions of the concrete ceiling above equipment that supplies
components to the stockpile are spalling as the rebar inside
the 60-plus-year-old concrete has corroded due to a desiccant
used in the air handling system. Such working conditions are
unacceptable if not dangerous. The committee directs the GAO to
review the status of the existing facility to meet stockpile
needs, whether the NNSA has a long-term and coherent program
plan for lithium sustainment, and how well-developed the plans
are to replace this unacceptable facility. The GAO shall brief
the congressional defense committees no later than February 28,
2015, on the results of this review with an interim briefing no
later than October 31, 2014.
With the deferral of the CMR Replacement project, the
committee continues to be concerned about implementing a long-
term strategy for plutonium sustainment. Testimony by Dr.
McMillan before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on April 9,
2014, indicates that a modular approach to a smaller series of
buildings holds promise for lower costs and greater
flexibility. However, the ability to accomplish the first two
stages of moving out of the 60-year-old CMR facility into other
facilities within Technical Area 55 are in danger of not being
met by the required date of 2019. Like Dr. McMillan, the
committee remains concerned about meeting the 2019 deadline for
vacating the CMR facility. Direction is given elsewhere in the
bill to assist the NNSA in accomplishing the move out of the
CMR facility in a timely fashion.
Secure transportation asset
The committee recommends $233.8 million for the secure
transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The
secure transportation asset is responsible for the
transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials,
components, and other materials requiring safe and secure
transport.
Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer
The committee recommends $618.1 million for safeguards and
security and the Chief Information Officer; the same as the
budget request. The committee is aware of the recent formation
of the Departmental Security Committee for execution of
departmental security policy across the nuclear enterprise. It
is the committee's understanding that the Office of Defense
Nuclear Security is developing an enterprise-wide life-cycle
management plan for the physical security infrastructure by
June 2014. The committee directs the GAO to review this plan
against GAO's program management and best practices with a
briefing to congressional defense committees no later than
January 30, 2015.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs
The committee recommends $1.8 billion for the Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, an increase of $285.0 million
to the budget request. The National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has management and oversight
responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the
Department of Energy (DOE).
The committee directs the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
program to report no later than December 1, 2015, on a 5-year
budget profile, if feasible, for a program to equip and train
other countries on nuclear incident response. This effort
should be joint with the NNSA nuclear counterterrorism incident
response program and the counterterrorism and
counterproliferation program.
Nonproliferation and verification research and development
The committee recommends $390.8 million for
nonproliferation and verification research, an increase of
$30.0 million for research associated with detection of
enrichment and reprocessing activities.
Nonproliferation and international security
The committee recommends $141.4 million for
nonproliferation and international security, the same as the
budget request.
International nuclear materials protection and cooperation
The committee recommends $375.5 million for international
nuclear materials production and cooperation, an increase of
$70.0 million to assist countries in detecting nuclear
materials and implementing measures to install security
upgrades.
Fissile Materials Disposition program
The Fissile Materials Disposition program converts excess
weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for use in
commercial power reactors. The United States and Russia have
signed the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement where
each country has agreed to the disposition of 34 metric tons of
excess weapons grade plutonium, thus removing the possibility
that this plutonium could be reused for weapons or fall into
the hands of terrorists. Russia has modified the agreement so
that they will not produce MOX but instead burn the plutonium
in fast reactors. After the United States considered more than
40 different options on how to dispose of surplus plutonium, a
2010 amendment to the agreement eliminated immobilization as an
option and selected MOX as the disposition path for the U.S.
share of the plutonium. The NNSA has now estimated that the
life cycle cost of the project is on the order of $26.0 billion
with construction of the MOX facility ranging from $9.6 to
$12.0 billion (depending on level of annual appropriation). The
original cost estimate of the facility was $4.8 billion. The
facility is currently 60 percent complete.
The committee recommends $456.1 million for fissile
materials disposition, an increase of $145.0 million which is
for the MOX fabrication facility construction.
For fiscal year 2015, the NNSA has proposed to place the
construction of the MOX project in cold stand-by. Until such
time as the committee receives and evaluates a final report
listing alternatives to reducing the 34 metric tons of weapons
grade plutonium to MOX, the NNSA is directed to continue
construction of the facilities.
Global threat reduction initiative
The committee recommends $373.5 million for the global
threat reduction initiative, an increase of $40.0 million to
accelerate the return of U.S. and non-U.S. origin nuclear
material as well as radiological material protection.
Naval Reactors
The committee recommends $1.4 billion for naval reactors.
The committee understands that in fiscal year 2014, naval
reactors did not receive funding for a super computer to model
the Ohio Replacement fuel core, as well as funds needed for the
Modifications and Additions to a Reactor Facility at Knolls
Atomic Power Laboratories. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Energy to approve necessary reprogramming funds to
meet these important program objectives. The committee supports
the replacement for the Spent Fuel Handling Facility to be
constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory.
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response
The committee recommends $173.4 million for nuclear
counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget
request.
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs
The committee recommends $76.9 million, the amount of the
budget request.
Office of the Administrator
The committee recommends $403.3 million for the Office of
the Administrator, the amount of the budget request, a decrease
of $87.5 million.
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at
the DOE. The defense environmental cleanup activities support
the cleanup of contaminated facilities, soil, ground and
surface water, and the treatment and disposal of radioactive
and other waste generated through the production of nuclear
weapons and weapons materials. The Environmental Management
program was established in 1989 to clean up 50 years of Cold
War waste from the production of nuclear weapons and materials,
including plutonium and highly enriched uranium. The committee
notes that the budget request of $463.0 million for the uranium
enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund assumes
that Congress will reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 2297g) for industry
contributions. In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, this legislation
was not reauthorized and the committee assumes it will not be
reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the committee
redistributes the $463.0 million associated with this
assumption to other higher priority needs.
Savannah River Site
The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah
River Site cleanup to help accelerate and meet tank
stabilization milestones under the consent order with the State
of South Carolina. The committee is aware of the critical
milestones with the State of South Carolina for tank close-out
by 2028. In that regard, the start-up of the Salt Waste
Processing Facility is a critical element to separate high-
level waste from low-level waste. The committee expects to be
informed of the final baseline cost estimate for the Salt Waste
Processing Facility due to the delays of the large vessels that
are part of the facility.
Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Activities
The committee recommends $690.0 million, the amount of the
budget request for the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). The
committee recommends $545.0 million for tank farm activities.
The committee continues to follow the progress at the WTP at
the DOE Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. Unlike the
Savannah River Site, the composition of the waste in the tanks
is non-uniform, adding complexity to the separation and
treatment of high- and low-level waste. The Department is
encouraged to expedite the treatment of the low-level waste
streams and fully inform the committee of the costs associated
with the pre-treatment of the low-level waste. The overall
completion cost of the project has risen from $5.8 billion to
$12.3 billion. The committee directs the Department to ensure
that the committee is informed of decisions on directly
treating the low-level waste and whether another pre-treatment
plant is needed for the high-level waste.
Hanford Site
The committee recommends $848.1 million for the Hanford
River Site (excluding the waste treatment and immobilization
plant), the amount of the budget request.
Idaho National Laboratory
The committee recommends $367.2 million, the amount of the
budget request, for the Idaho Waste Cleanup to continue to
remove the transuranic waste and other buried waste, as
applicable, for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and
to continue sodium bearing waste treatment operations.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
The committee recommends $224.6 million for Los Alamos
National Laboratory to continue to remove transuranic waste for
shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and to monitor
groundwater contamination as well as to design a system to
treat the hexavalent chromium contamination in the ground
water.
Oak Ridge Reservation
The committee recommends $206.9 million for the Oak Ridge
Reservation, the amount of the budget request.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
The committee recommends $216.0 million. The committee
directs the GAO to review program operations at the plant with
respect to safety and contractor assurance systems and compare
the operation of the plant with respect to best practices
developed by the GAO for program management and safety
standards by the DOE and other applicable agencies. The review
shall consist of an interim briefing no later than November 30,
2014, with the final product consisting of a briefing to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 2015.
Safeguards and Security
The committee recommends $233.9 million, the amount of the
budget request.
Technology Development
The committee recommends $13.0 million for technology
development, the amount of the budget request.
Program Direction and Support
The committee recommends $295.8 million for program
direction and support, the amount of the budget request.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$751.0 million for other defense activities, a $2 million
reduction from the budget request. Of this amount, the
committee recommends $179.9 million for health, safety, and
security, a $1 million reduction from the budget request;
$202.1 million for specialized security, the amount of the
budget request; $170.9 million for Legacy Management, a $1
million reduction from the budget request; $73.5 million for
Independent Enterprise Assessment, the amount of the budget
request; $118.8 million for other defense-related
administrative support, the amount of the budget request; and
$5.5 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount
of the budget request.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Life-cycle cost estimates of certain atomic energy defense capital
assets (sec. 3111)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Atomic Energy Defense Act to require that, under order 413.3 at
the end of phase CD-1 and before phase CD-4, the Secretary of
Energy perform an independent life-cycle cost estimate of
capital assets that have a single purpose mission. This is to
reduce the likelihood of large increases in life-cycle
estimates late in the program cycle of facilities as evidenced
by the mixed oxide fuel facility and the waste treatment plant.
Expansion of requirement for independent cost estimates on life
extension programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 3112)
The committee recommends a provision that would align the
independent cost estimating practices for life extension
programs and new nuclear facilities with those performed by the
Department of Defense as required by the Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act (P.L. 111-23), which requires
independent cost estimates early in the concept definition
phase. For Department of Energy (DOE) programs, this is the 6.1
concept assessment phase of a life extension program and
critical decision 1 of DOE Order 413.3, Program Management for
Acquisition of Capital Assets.
Implementation of Phase I of Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project
(sec. 3113)
The committee recommends a provision that would require in
replacing building 9212 at the Y-12 plant, the technologies (or
their substitutes) that are to go into the replacement building
have a technology readiness level of at least seven.
Technologies (or their substitutes) that were in building 9212
that do not go into the replacement building are also to have a
technology readiness level of at least seven. Critical
decision-3 (construction) as defined by Department of Energy
order 413.3 (Program and Project Management for the Acquisition
of Capital Assets) for the replacement of building 9212 may not
begin until this condition is met.
This section applies only to process technologies that
require protection levels consistent with Categories I and II
found under Department of Energy Order 474.2 (Nuclear Material
Control and Accountability), such as casting and material
purification and enrichment.
Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker
Health (sec. 3114)
The committee recommends a provision would create an
advisory board reporting to the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Program on toxic substances and worker health.
Comments of Administrator for Nuclear Security on reports of
Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear
Security Enterprise (sec. 3115)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
to respond within 90 days to the findings of the Congressional
Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security
Enterprise, created in section 3166 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239), which
shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees.
Identification of amounts required for uranium technology sustainment
in budget materials for fiscal year 2016 (sec. 3116)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator for Nuclear Security to include in the fiscal
year 2016 budget request a uranium sustainment budget line for
technology development past technology readiness level five so
that plant-directed research and development (R&D) at
facilities such as Y-12 can concentrate on projects involving
technology readiness level four and below. Currently,
facilities such as Y-12 must develop most if not all future
uranium technologies on plant directed R&D.
Budget Items
Cruise Missile Warhead Life Extension Program
The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained $9.4 million
for the 6.1 study for extending the life of the cruise missile
warhead. This effort is a high priority for the Air Force,
which predicts that the current warhead and the missile will
have to be life extended in the 2025 timeframe. The requested
fiscal year 2015 funding will result in a 1 to 3 year delay in
the overall effort. The committee recommends an increase of
$7.5 million to this life extension program to mitigate the
delay.
Environment Safety and Health
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the DOE Office of
Environment Safety and Health is $188.7 million. The committee
recommends a reduction of $1 million as excess to need.
Legacy Management
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of
Energy Office of Legacy Management is $158.6 million. The
committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million as excess to
need.
Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker
Health
The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained no funding
for the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to fund
activities in section 3114.
Inertial confinement facility operations and target production
The fiscal year 2015 National Nuclear Security
Administration budget request for the inertial confinement
facility operations and target production is $335.9 million.
The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million as excess
to need.
Federal salaries and expenses
The fiscal year 2015 National Nuclear Security
Administration budget request for federal salaries and expenses
is $410.8 million. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5
million as excess to need.
Items of Special Interest
Efforts to meet the 2019 move of plutonium capabilities from the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility
The Strategic Forces Subcommittee is aware of the
administration's plans to execute the first two phases of the
plutonium (Pu) strategy (maximize use of the new radiological
laboratory/utility/office building and repurpose existing space
in Plutonium Facility (PF)-4) as new subprojects to the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Replacement project.
The third phase (module construction) will be a separate line
item to be submitted in fiscal year 2016. This approach will
add additional visibility into the process as it will follow a
more rigorous application of Department of Energy (DOE) Order
413.3B, ``Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of
Capital Assets.'' Recognizing that the Pu strategy includes a
mixture of tasks that support the 2019 end of programmatic
activities in the CMR facility and some tasks that do not
support the 2019 milestone, the administration is encouraged to
identify those tasks required to support the 2019 milestone and
to pursue a streamlined DOE Order 413.3B process associated
with those tasks. It is important that such streamlining should
not in any way degrade reasonable program control and
oversight. The third phase of the Pu strategy concerning module
construction is not to be part of this streamlining
consideration. The intent of streamlining is to avoid deferring
tasks that will reduce the risk in either CMR or PF-4, while
awaiting broader approvals on critical decisions. The
administration will provide a report to the Strategic Forces
Subcommittee, no later than September 31, 2014, that provides
details on activities that can be accelerated to achieve the
2019 CMR milestone.
Laboratory Scientific Equipment Sustainment
The committee understands the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has repurposed funding, including
resources that previously supported scientific equipment and
capabilities needed to support and sustain the nuclear weapons
mission, to meet infrastructure maintenance, repair, and
recapitalization requirements. While the committee believes
basic infrastructure needs are important, the committee is
concerned that a sustained lack of investment in scientific
capabilities could increase risk to the laboratories' primary
mission--science-based stockpile stewardship--and is not
consistent with the stated national goal of achieving a modern
and responsive nuclear infrastructure. The committee supports a
solution that allows investment in both areas of pressing need
and appreciates the considerable challenges confronting NNSA,
as well as the difficulties stemming from not having a Senate-
confirmed Administrator. In this regard, the committee welcomes
the recent confirmation of the Administrator and encourages him
to review its investment in scientific capabilities.
National Nuclear Security Administration Governance
The committee remains concerned about the current
governance structure and management of the Nuclear Security
Enterprise. Since the 2009 conclusion of the Congressional
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, which
found that ``the governance structure of the [National Nuclear
Security Administration] NNSA is not delivering the needed
results,'' evidence has only mounted that serious, bold reforms
are necessary. The interim report of the Congressional Advisory
Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise
provides the most recent confirmation of the dire need for
governance reform.
The committee appreciates the work of the Panel and the
detailed description provided in its report of the abortive
structure currently in place. The Panel's interim report makes
clear that the current system chiefly prevents the efficient
use of resources and the effective execution of its mission--
arguably the two most important requirements of the Nuclear
Security Enterprise.
The committee believes reform is imperative in order to
maintain confidence in the U.S. nuclear deterrent and looks
forward to the Panel's final report, but notes that legislation
ultimately cannot make an organization meet the expectations
laid upon it. Leadership is the primary driver of excellence
and the committee has great expectations for the new
Administrator of the NNSA.
Procurement of unencumbered special nuclear material for tritium
production
The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to determine
if the Mutual Defense Agreement between the United Kingdom and
Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of
America on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Purpose, dated
July 5, 1958, permits the United States to obtain low enriched
uranium for the purposes of tritium production or purchase
directly tritium from the United Kingdom. Such a determination
shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later
than September 30, 2014.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $30.2 million.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)
The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this
Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
agency heads to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific
entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.
Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701)
The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item
guidance for the funding authorized in this Act, in accordance
with the requirements of section 4001. The provisions also
display the line-item funding requested by the administration
in the fiscal year 2015 budget request and show where the
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from
the administration request, as set forth in budget
justification documents of the Department of Defense, without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Senate
Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
National Defense (Budget Function 050)
Department of Defense-Military (Budget Sub-Function 051)
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................... 5,102,685 334,000 5,436,685
Missile Procurement, Army....................................... 1,017,483 0 1,017,483
Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.......... 1,471,438 86,011 1,557,449
Procurement of Ammunition, Army................................. 1,031,477 -18,400 1,013,077
Other Procurement, Army......................................... 4,893,634 -356,400 4,537,234
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................... 115,058 -115,058 0
Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................... 13,074,317 10,000 13,084,317
Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................... 3,217,945 93,000 3,310,945
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps.................. 771,945 0 771,945
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy................................. 14,400,625 91,000 14,491,625
Other Procurement, Navy......................................... 5,975,828 -15,000 5,960,828
Procurement, Marine Corps....................................... 983,352 2,900 986,252
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force................................. 11,542,571 -15,900 11,526,671
Missile Procurement, Air Force.................................. 4,690,506 -139,531 4,550,975
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................ 677,400 8,800 686,200
Other Procurement, Air Force.................................... 16,566,018 20,600 16,586,618
Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................... 4,221,437 -210,772 4,010,665
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund............................. 20,000 0 20,000
Prior Year Rescissions.......................................... -265,685 265,685 0
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement.................................. 89,508,034 40,935 89,548,969
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army................ 6,593,898 5,702 6,599,600
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy................ 16,266,335 -243,639 16,022,696
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........... 23,739,892 -227,434 23,512,458
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide........ 16,766,084 415,822 17,181,906
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense.......................... 167,738 0 167,738
Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.. 63,533,947 -49,549 63,484,398
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................... 33,240,148 -21,400 33,218,748
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve........................... 2,490,569 20,000 2,510,569
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard.................... 6,030,773 14,200 6,044,973
Operation & Maintenance, Navy................................... 39,025,857 79,500 39,105,357
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps........................... 5,909,487 25,857 5,935,344
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve........................... 1,007,100 5,000 1,012,100
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................... 268,582 5,000 273,582
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force.............................. 35,331,193 206,590 35,537,783
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve...................... 3,015,842 5,000 3,020,842
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard..................... 6,392,859 5,000 6,397,859
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide........................... 31,198,232 12,700 31,210,932
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces............. 13,723 13,723
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid................... 100,000 100,000
Cooperative Threat Reduction.................................... 365,108 365,108
DoD Acquisition Workforce Development Fund...................... 212,875 212,875
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-Wide......................... 8,547 8,547
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites.......... 208,353 208,353
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund................... 5,000 5,000
Support of International Sporting Competitions, Defense......... 10,000 -4,300 5,700
Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance.................. 165,721,818 353,147 166,074,965
Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations............................... 128,957,593 -46,910 128,910,683
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions............. 6,236,092 6,236,092
Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel.......................... 135,193,685 -46,910 135,146,775
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 -5,000 39,293
Working Capital Fund, Defense Commissary Agency................. 1,114,731 200,000 1,314,731
National Sea-based Deterrence Fund.............................. 100,000 100,000
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense................ 828,868 828,868
Office of the Inspector General................................. 311,830 311,830
Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense............ 820,687 20,000 840,687
Defense Health Program.......................................... 31,833,061 -78,000 31,755,061
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations....................... 35,028,914 237,000 35,265,914
Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations......... 488,986,398 534,623 489,521,021
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
Military Construction
Army............................................................ 539,427 5,400 544,827
Navy............................................................ 1,018,772 -25,573 993,199
Air Force....................................................... 811,774 34,400 846,174
Defense-Wide.................................................... 2,061,890 -200,000 1,861,890
Army National Guard............................................. 126,920 5,000 131,920
Air National Guard.............................................. 94,663 13,200 107,863
Army Reserve.................................................... 103,946 25,000 128,946
Navy Reserve.................................................... 51,528 47,869 99,397
Air Force Reserve............................................... 49,492 14,500 63,992
Chemical Demilitarization Construction.......................... 38,715 38,715
NATO Security Investment Program................................ 199,700 -25,000 174,700
Subtotal, Military Construction................................. 5,096,827 -105,204 4,991,623
Family Housing
Construction, Army.............................................. 78,609 78,609
Operation and Maintenance, Army................................. 350,976 350,976
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps............................. 16,412 16,412
Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps................ 354,029 354,029
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force............................ 327,747 327,747
Operation and 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
Army............................................................ 84,417 84,417
Navy............................................................ 94,692 94,692
Air Force....................................................... 90,976 90,976
Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure.......................... 270,085 270,085
Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations......... 6,557,447 -105,204 6,452,243
Department of Defense-Military (Budget Sub-Function 051)........ 495,543,845 429,419 495,973,264
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Budget Sub-Function 053)
Division C: Department of Energy National Security and Independent Federal Agency Authorizations
Department of Energy Authorizations
Energy Programs
Nuclear Energy.................................................. 104,000 104,000
Subtotal, Energy Programs....................................... 104,000 104,000
Advisory Board
Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health............ 2,000 2,000
Subtotal, Advisory Board........................................ 2,000 2,000
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities.............................................. 8,314,902 8,314,902
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................ 1,555,156 285,000 1,840,156
Naval Reactors.................................................. 1,377,100 1,377,100
Federal Salaries and Expenses................................... 410,842 -7,500 403,342
Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration.............. 11,658,000 277,500 11,935,500
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Cleanup................................... 5,327,538 -463,000 4,864,538
Other Defense Activities........................................ 753,000 -2,000 751,000
Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities............ 6,080,538 -465,000 5,615,538
Subtotal, Department of Energy Authorizations................... 17,842,538 -185,500 17,657,038
Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................... 30,150 30,150
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization.............. 30,150 30,150
Total, Division C: Department of Energy National Security and 17,872,688 -185,500 17,687,188
Independent Federal Agency Authorizations......................
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Budget Sub-Function 053)...... 17,872,688 -185,500 17,687,188
Total, National Defense (Budget Function 050)................... 513,416,533 243,919 513,660,452
MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY TOTALS
Department of Defense-Military (051)............................ 495,543,845 429,419 495,973,264
Atomic energy defense activities (053).......................... 17,872,688 185,500 17,687,188
Total, National Defense (050)................................... 513,416,533 243,919 513,660,452
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600).......... 63,400 63,400
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
Title X--General Transfer Authority............................. [5,000,000] [5,000,000]
Title XV--Special Transfer Authority............................ [4,000,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Defense Discretionary Authorizations
Programs in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee
National Defense (050)
Department of Defense-Military, 495,543,845 429,419 495,973,264
Base Budget (051).............
Atomic energy defense 17,872,688 -185,500 17,687,188
activities (053)..............
Total, National Defense (050).. 513,416,533 243,919 513,660,452
Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations
Programs Outside the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or
Already Authorized
Department of Defense-Military (051)
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, Department of Defense- 61,000 61,000
Military (051)................
Atomic energy defense activities (053)
Formerly Utilized Sites 100,000 100,000
Remedial Action Program.......
Subtotal, Atomic energy defense 100,000 100,000
activities (053)..............
Defense-related activities (054)
Other Discretionary Programs... 7,681,000 7,681,000
Subtotal, Defense-related 7,681,000 7,681,000
activities (054)..............
Total, Other Defense 7,842,000 7,842,000
Discretionary Authorizations
(050).........................
Discretionary Budget Authority Implication (050)
National Defense (050)
Department of Defense--Military 495,604,845 429,419 496,034,264
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 17,972,688 -185,500 17,787,188
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 7,681,000 7,681,000
(054).........................
Total, Discretionary Budget 521,258,533 243,919 521,502,452
Authority Implication, 050....
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
Department of Defense-Military (051)
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, Department of Defense- 6,649,000 6,649,000
Military (051)................
Atomic energy defense activities (053)
Energy employees occupational 1,197,000 1,197,000
illness compensation programs
and other.....................
Subtotal, Atomic energy defense 1,197,000 1,197,000
activities (053)..............
Defense-related activities (054)
Radiation exposure compensation 59,000 59,000
trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund 514,000 514,000
and other.....................
Subtotal, Defense-related 573,000 573,000
activities (054)..............
Total, National Defense 8,419,000 8,419,000
Mandatory Programs (050)......
Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050)
Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050)
Department of Defense--Military 502,253,845 429,419 502,683,264
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 19,169,688 -185,500 18,984,188
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 8,254,000 8,254,000
(054).........................
Total, Budget Authority 529,677,533 243,919 529,921,452
Implication (050).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
2 UTILITY F/W 1 13,617 1 13,617
AIRCRAFT..........
3 AERIAL COMMON 16 185,090 16 185,090
SENSOR (ACS) (MIP)
4 MQ-1 UAV........... 19 190,581 19 190,581
5 RQ-11 (RAVEN)...... 0 3,964 3,964
ROTARY
6 HELICOPTER, LIGHT 55 416,617 35 196,000 90 612,617
UTILITY (LUH).....
Risk reduction [35] [196,000]
for buy of LUH
to meet Army
training fleet
plans...........
7 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 25 494,009 25 494,009
IIIA REMAN........
8 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 157,338 157,338
IIIA REMAN........
12 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 79 1,237,001 8 145,000 87 1,382,001
MODEL (MYP).......
Army unfunded [8] [145,000]
priority only
for Army
National Guard..
13 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 0 132,138 132,138
MODEL (MYP).......
14 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 32 892,504 32 892,504
15 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 0 102,361 102,361
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
16 MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP). 2 26,913 2 26,913
18 GUARDRAIL MODS 0 14,182 14,182
(MIP).............
19 MULTI SENSOR ABN 0 131,892 131,892
RECON (MIP).......
20 AH-64 MODS......... 0 181,869 181,869
21 CH-47 CARGO 0 32,092 32,092
HELICOPTER MODS
(MYP).............
22 UTILITY/CARGO 0 15,029 15,029
AIRPLANE MODS.....
23 UTILITY HELICOPTER 0 76,515 76,515
MODS..............
25 NETWORK AND MISSION 0 114,182 114,182
PLAN..............
26 COMMS, NAV 0 115,795 115,795
SURVEILLANCE......
27 GATM ROLLUP........ 0 54,277 54,277
28 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 0 125,380 125,380
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
29 AIRCRAFT 0 66,450 7,800 74,250
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.........
At Army request [7,800]
transfer from
APA 31..........
30 SURVIVABILITY CM... 0 0 32,400 32,400
At Army request [32,400]
transfer from
APA 31..........
31 CMWS............... 0 107,364 -47,200 60,164
At Army request [-47,200]
transfer to APA
29 and APA 30...
OTHER SUPPORT
32 AVIONICS SUPPORT 0 6,847 6,847
EQUIPMENT.........
33 COMMON GROUND 0 29,231 29,231
EQUIPMENT.........
34 AIRCREW INTEGRATED 0 48,081 48,081
SYSTEMS...........
35 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 127,232 127,232
36 INDUSTRIAL 0 1,203 1,203
FACILITIES........
37 LAUNCHER, 2.75 387 2,931 387 2,931
ROCKET............
AIRCRAFT 5,102,685 334,000 5,436,685
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TOTAL.............
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
2 LOWER TIER AIR AND 0 110,300 110,300
MISSILE DEFENSE
(AMD).............
3 MSE MISSILE........ 70 384,605 70 384,605
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
4 HELLFIRE SYS 0 4,452 4,452
SUMMARY...........
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
5 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 338 77,668 338 77,668
SYSTEM SUMMARY....
6 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1008 50,368 1008 50,368
SUMMARY...........
7 TOW 2 SYSTEM 0 19,984 19,984
SUMMARY...........
8 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 534 127,145 534 127,145
(GMLRS)...........
9 MLRS REDUCED RANGE 2994 21,274 2994 21,274
PRACTICE ROCKETS
(RRPR)............
MODIFICATIONS
12 PATRIOT MODS....... 0 131,838 131,838
13 STINGER MODS....... 0 1,355 1,355
14 AVENGER MODS....... 0 5,611 5,611
15 ITAS/TOW MODS...... 0 19,676 19,676
16 MLRS MODS.......... 0 10,380 10,380
17 HIMARS 0 6,008 6,008
MODIFICATIONS.....
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
18 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 36,930 36,930
PARTS.............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
19 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS 0 3,657 3,657
20 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 1,522 1,522
$5.0M (MISSILES)..
21 PRODUCTION BASE 0 4,710 4,710
SUPPORT...........
MISSILE 1,017,483 0 1,017,483
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TOTAL.............
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 STRYKER VEHICLE.... 0 385,110 385,110
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
2 STRYKER (MOD)...... 0 39,683 39,683
3 FIST VEHICLE (MOD). 0 26,759 26,759
4 BRADLEY PROGRAM 0 107,506 37,000 144,506
(MOD).............
Army unfunded [37,000]
priority and
industrial base
risk mitigation.
5 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 0 45,411 45,411
155MM M109A6 (MOD)
6 PALADIN INTEGRATED 18 247,400 18 247,400
MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
7 IMPROVED RECOVERY 15 50,451 75,913 15 126,364
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).........
Army unfunded [75,913]
priority and
industrial base
risk mitigation.
8 ASSAULT BRIDGE 0 2,473 2,473
(MOD).............
9 ASSAULT BREACHER 7 36,583 7 36,583
VEHICLE...........
10 M88 FOV MODS....... 0 1,975 1,975
11 JOINT ASSAULT 8 49,462 -41,200 8 8,262
BRIDGE............
Early to need... [-41,200]
12 M1 ABRAMS TANK 0 237,023 24,000 261,023
(MOD).............
Army unfunded [24,000]
priority and
industrial base
risk mitigation.
14 PRODUCTION BASE 0 6,478 6,478
SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV)
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
16 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 0 5,012 5,012
17 XM320 GRENADE 8959 28,390 8959 28,390
LAUNCHER MODULE
(GLM).............
18 COMPACT SEMI- 0 148 148
AUTOMATIC SNIPER
SYSTEM............
19 CARBINE............ 38234 29,366 -8,750 38234 20,616
At Army request [-8,750]
transfer to WTCV
31 and RDTEA 70
and 86..........
21 COMMON REMOTELY 0 8,409 8,409
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION...........
22 HANDGUN............ 4811 3,957 4811 3,957
MOD OF WEAPONS AND
OTHER COMBAT VEH
24 M777 MODS.......... 0 18,166 18,166
25 M4 CARBINE MODS.... 0 3,446 3,000 6,446
At Army request [3,000]
transfer from
WTCV 19, 28, and
31..............
26 M2 50 CAL MACHINE 0 25,296 25,296
GUN MODS..........
27 M249 SAW MACHINE 0 5,546 5,546
GUN MODS..........
28 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 4,635 -2,000 2,635
GUN MODS..........
At Army request [-2,000]
transfer to WTCV
31 and RDTEA 70
and 86..........
29 SNIPER RIFLES 0 4,079 4,079
MODIFICATIONS.....
30 M119 MODIFICATIONS. 0 72,718 72,718
31 M16 RIFLE MODS..... 0 1,952 -1,952 0
At Army request [-1,952]
transfer to WTCV
31 and RDTEA 70
and 86..........
32 MORTAR MODIFICATION 0 8,903 8,903
33 MODIFICATIONS LESS 0 2,089 2,089
THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
34 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 2,005 2,005
$5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
35 PRODUCTION BASE 0 8,911 8,911
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).............
36 INDUSTRIAL 0 414 414
PREPAREDNESS......
37 SMALL ARMS 0 1,682 1,682
EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
ENH PROG).........
PROCUREMENT OF 1,471,438 86,011 1,557,449
W&TCV, ARMY TOTAL.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 0 34,943 34,943
TYPES.............
2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 0 12,418 12,418
TYPES.............
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 0 9,655 -1,500 8,155
TYPES.............
Program [-1,500]
decrease--ahead
of need.........
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 29,304 29,304
TYPES.............
6 CTG, 25MM, ALL 0 8,181 8,181
TYPES.............
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL 0 52,667 52,667
TYPES.............
8 CTG, 40MM, ALL 0 40,904 -1,900 39,004
TYPES.............
Program [-1,900]
decrease--ahead
of need.........
MORTAR AMMUNITION
9 60MM MORTAR, ALL 0 41,742 41,742
TYPES.............
10 81MM MORTAR, ALL 0 42,433 42,433
TYPES.............
11 120MM MORTAR, ALL 0 39,365 39,365
TYPES.............
TANK AMMUNITION
12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 0 101,900 101,900
105MM AND 120MM,
ALL TYPES.........
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
13 ARTILLERY 0 37,455 37,455
CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
105MM, ALL TYPES..
14 ARTILLERY 0 47,023 47,023
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 416 35,672 416 35,672
RANGE M982........
16 ARTILLERY 0 94,010 -15,000 79,010
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
Program [-15,000]
decrease--PGK...
ROCKETS
19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 0 945 945
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 27,286 27,286
ALL TYPES.........
OTHER AMMUNITION
21 DEMOLITION 0 22,899 22,899
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 0 22,751 22,751
23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 0 7,082 7,082
24 SIMULATORS, ALL 0 11,638 11,638
TYPES.............
MISCELLANEOUS
25 AMMO COMPONENTS, 0 3,594 3,594
ALL TYPES.........
27 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES.. 0 5,430 5,430
28 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 8,337 8,337
MILLION (AMMO)....
29 AMMUNITION PECULIAR 0 14,906 14,906
EQUIPMENT.........
30 FIRST DESTINATION 0 14,349 14,349
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO)............
31 CLOSEOUT 0 111 111
LIABILITIES.......
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
32 PROVISION OF 0 148,092 148,092
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES........
33 CONVENTIONAL 0 113,881 113,881
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATION..
34 ARMS INITIATIVE.... 0 2,504 2,504
PROCUREMENT OF 1,031,477 -18,400 1,013,077
AMMUNITION, ARMY
TOTAL.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/ 0 7,987 7,987
DOLLY SETS........
2 SEMITRAILERS, 1 160 1 160
FLATBED:..........
4 JOINT LIGHT 176 164,615 176 164,615
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
6 FIRETRUCKS & 19 8,415 19 8,415
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
7 FAMILY OF HEAVY 444 28,425 444 28,425
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)............
8 PLS ESP............ 198 89,263 198 89,263
13 TACTICAL WHEELED 735 38,226 735 38,226
VEHICLE PROTECTION
KITS..............
14 MODIFICATION OF IN 768 91,173 768 91,173
SVC EQUIP.........
15 MINE-RESISTANT 1 14,731 1 14,731
AMBUSH-PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.......
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
16 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN 1 175 1 175
17 PASSENGER CARRYING 25 1,338 25 1,338
VEHICLES..........
18 NONTACTICAL 0 11,101 11,101
VEHICLES, OTHER...
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
19 WIN-T--GROUND 1280 763,087 -125,000 1280 638,087
FORCES TACTICAL
NETWORK...........
Point of [-125,000]
Presence (POP)
and Soldier
Network
Extension (SNE)
delay...........
20 SIGNAL 69 21,157 69 21,157
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
21 JOINT INCIDENT SITE 0 7,915 7,915
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY........
22 JCSE EQUIPMENT 0 5,440 5,440
(USREDCOM)........
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
23 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 18 118,085 18 118,085
WIDEBAND SATCOM
SYSTEMS...........
24 TRANSPORTABLE 21 13,999 21 13,999
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS....
25 SHF TERM........... 0 6,494 6,494
26 NAVSTAR GLOBAL 0 1,635 1,635
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(SPACE)...........
27 SMART-T (SPACE).... 0 13,554 13,554
28 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-- 0 18,899 18,899
GBS...............
29 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 2,849 2,849
(TAC SAT).........
30 ENROUTE MISSION 0 100,000 100,000
COMMAND (EMC).....
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
33 JOINT TACTICAL 2674 175,711 -88,000 2674 87,711
RADIO SYSTEM......
Under execution [-88,000]
of prior years
funds...........
34 MID-TIER NETWORKING 0 9,692 -8,000 1,692
VEHICULAR RADIO
(MNVR)............
Under execution [-8,000]
of prior years
funds...........
35 RADIO TERMINAL SET, 620 17,136 620 17,136
MIDS LVT(2).......
37 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS-- 3081 22,099 3081 22,099
OPA2..............
38 TRACTOR DESK....... 0 3,724 3,724
39 SPIDER APLA REMOTE 0 969 969
CONTROL UNIT......
40 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 0 294 294
PROGRAM COMM/
ELECTRONICS.......
41 TACTICAL 8344 24,354 8344 24,354
COMMUNICATIONS AND
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
42 UNIFIED COMMAND 0 17,445 17,445
SUITE.............
43 RADIO, IMPROVED HF 0 1,028 1,028
(COTS) FAMILY.....
44 FAMILY OF MED COMM 974 22,614 974 22,614
FOR COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.....
COMM--INTELLIGENCE
COMM
46 CI AUTOMATION 0 1,519 1,519
ARCHITECTURE......
47 ARMY CA/MISO GPF 305 12,478 305 12,478
EQUIPMENT.........
INFORMATION
SECURITY
50 INFORMATION SYSTEM 0 2,113 2,113
SECURITY PROGRAM-
ISSP..............
51 COMMUNICATIONS 2750 69,646 2750 69,646
SECURITY (COMSEC).
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
52 BASE SUPPORT 0 28,913 28,913
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
53 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 97,091 97,091
54 DEFENSE MESSAGE 0 246 246
SYSTEM (DMS)......
55 EMERGENCY 0 5,362 5,362
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
56 INSTALLATION INFO 0 79,965 79,965
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
60 JTT/CIBS-M......... 0 870 870
61 PROPHET GROUND..... 11 55,896 11 55,896
63 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 2423 128,207 2423 128,207
64 JOINT TACTICAL 2 5,286 2 5,286
GROUND STATION
(JTAGS)...........
65 TROJAN (MIP)....... 0 12,614 12,614
66 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 3,901 3,901
(INTEL SPT) (MIP).
67 CI HUMINT AUTO 358 7,392 358 7,392
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS)......
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
68 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 3 24,828 3 24,828
MORTAR RADAR......
70 AIR VIGILANCE (AV). 0 7,000 7,000
72 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 0 1,285 1,285
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
75 SENTINEL MODS...... 81 44,305 81 44,305
76 NIGHT VISION 9700 160,901 9700 160,901
DEVICES...........
78 SMALL TACTICAL 1935 18,520 1935 18,520
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF......
80 INDIRECT FIRE 173 68,296 173 68,296
PROTECTION FAMILY
OF SYSTEMS........
81 FAMILY OF WEAPON 1716 49,205 -12,000 1716 37,205
SIGHTS (FWS)......
Early to need... [-12,000]
82 ARTILLERY ACCURACY 137 4,896 137 4,896
EQUIP.............
83 PROFILER........... 0 3,115 3,115
84 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 4,186 4,186
(FIREFINDER
RADARS)...........
85 JOINT BATTLE 2622 97,892 -10,000 2622 87,892
COMMAND--PLATFORM
(JBC-P)...........
Under execution [-10,000]
of prior years
funds...........
86 JOINT EFFECTS 41 27,450 41 27,450
TARGETING SYSTEM
(JETS)............
87 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 34 14,085 34 14,085
(LLDR)............
88 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 255 29,040 255 29,040
SYSTEM............
89 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 13 209,050 -80,400 13 128,650
Excessive LRIP [-80,400]
and concurrency.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
92 FIRE SUPPORT C2 0 13,823 13,823
FAMILY............
95 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 5 27,374 5 27,374
PLANNING & CONTROL
SYS...............
97 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE 0 2,508 2,508
SUPPORT (LCSS)....
99 NETWORK MANAGEMENT 0 21,524 21,524
INITIALIZATION AND
SERVICE...........
100 MANEUVER CONTROL 3748 95,455 3748 95,455
SYSTEM (MCS)......
101 GLOBAL COMBAT 0 118,600 118,600
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).....
102 INTEGRATED 0 32,970 32,970
PERSONNEL AND PAY
SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
104 RECONNAISSANCE AND 56 10,113 56 10,113
SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET....
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
105 ARMY TRAINING 0 9,015 9,015
MODERNIZATION.....
106 AUTOMATED DATA 0 155,223 -15,000 140,223
PROCESSING EQUIP..
Reduce IT [-15,000]
procurement.....
107 GENERAL FUND 0 16,581 16,581
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS SYSTEMS
FAM...............
108 HIGH PERF COMPUTING 0 65,252 65,252
MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
110 RESERVE COMPONENT 0 17,631 17,631
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS)............
ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
VISUAL SYS (A/V)
112 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 51 5,437 51 5,437
(SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT)........
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
113 PRODUCTION BASE 0 426 426
SUPPORT (C-E).....
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
113A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 3,707 3,707
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
115 FAMILY OF NON- 0 937 937
LETHAL EQUIPMENT
(FNLE)............
116 BASE DEFENSE 0 1,930 1,930
SYSTEMS (BDS).....
117 CBRN DEFENSE....... 14506 17,468 14506 17,468
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
119 TACTICAL BRIDGE, 6 5,442 6 5,442
FLOAT-RIBBON......
120 COMMON BRIDGE 0 11,013 11,013
TRANSPORTER (CBT)
RECAP.............
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
121 GRND STANDOFF MINE 0 37,649 37,649
DETECTN SYSM
(GSTAMIDS)........
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 0 6,346 6,346
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATION..
125 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 133 15,856 133 15,856
DISPOSAL EQPMT
(EOD EQPMT).......
126 REMOTE DEMOLITION 0 4,485 4,485
SYSTEMS...........
127 < $5M, COUNTERMINE 92 4,938 92 4,938
EQUIPMENT.........
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
128 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 628 9,235 628 9,235
130 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 1 1,677 1 1,677
131 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 12273 16,728 12273 16,728
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS)............
132 GROUND SOLDIER 3581 84,761 3581 84,761
SYSTEM............
134 FIELD FEEDING 141 15,179 141 15,179
EQUIPMENT.........
135 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 1386 28,194 1386 28,194
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
137 FAMILY OF ENGR 336 41,967 336 41,967
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION SETS.
138 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 859 20,090 859 20,090
(ENG SPT).........
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
139 QUALITY 0 1,435 1,435
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT.........
140 DISTRIBUTION 599 40,692 599 40,692
SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
& WATER...........
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
141 COMBAT SUPPORT 2388 46,957 2388 46,957
MEDICAL...........
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
142 MOBILE MAINTENANCE 60 23,758 60 23,758
EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
143 ITEMS LESS THAN 585 2,789 585 2,789
$5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
144 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, 22 5,827 22 5,827
HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
145 SCRAPERS, 22 14,926 22 14,926
EARTHMOVING.......
147 COMPACTOR.......... 617 4,348 617 4,348
148 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR 14 4,938 14 4,938
149 TRACTOR, FULL 95 34,071 95 34,071
TRACKED...........
150 ALL TERRAIN CRANES. 4 4,938 4 4,938
151 PLANT, ASPHALT 0 667 667
MIXING............
153 ENHANCED RAPID 0 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
CONTAINERIZATION
EQUIPMENT
156 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP 0 10,509 10,509
157 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 2,166 2,166
$5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
GENERATORS
158 GENERATORS AND 3882 115,190 3882 115,190
ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
MATERIAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
160 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS 146 14,327 146 14,327
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
161 COMBAT TRAINING 1 65,062 1 65,062
CENTERS SUPPORT...
162 TRAINING DEVICES, 43 101,295 43 101,295
NONSYSTEM.........
163 CLOSE COMBAT 0 13,406 13,406
TACTICAL TRAINER..
164 AVIATION COMBINED 0 14,440 14,440
ARMS TACTICAL
TRAINER...........
165 GAMING TECHNOLOGY 0 10,165 10,165
IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
TRAINING..........
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
166 CALIBRATION SETS 0 5,726 5,726
EQUIPMENT.........
167 INTEGRATED FAMILY 1657 37,482 1657 37,482
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)............
168 TEST EQUIPMENT 415 16,061 415 16,061
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD)...........
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
170 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 2,380 2,380
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
171 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 30,686 30,686
SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
172 BASE LEVEL COMMON 0 1,008 1,008
EQUIPMENT.........
173 MODIFICATION OF IN- 3209 98,559 -18,000 3209 80,559
SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3)................
Watercraft C4ISR [-18,000]
early to need...
174 PRODUCTION BASE 0 1,697 1,697
SUPPORT (OTH).....
175 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 0 25,394 25,394
FOR USER TESTING..
176 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS 963 12,975 963 12,975
OPA3..............
OPA2
180 INITIAL SPARES--C&E 11 50,032 11 50,032
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 4,893,634 -356,400 4,537,234
ARMY TOTAL........
JOINT IMPR
EXPLOSIVE DEV
DEFEAT FUND
STAFF AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
4 OPERATIONS......... 0 115,058 -115,058 0
Program decrease [-115,058]
JOINT IMPR 115,058 -115,058 0
EXPLOSIVE DEV
DEFEAT FUND TOTAL.
SUBTOTAL, 13,631,775 -69,847 13,561,928
DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY..............
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
1 EA-18G............. 0 43,547 25,000 68,547
Preserve option [25,000]
of buying more
EA-18G aircraft.
5 JOINT STRIKE 2 610,652 2 610,652
FIGHTER CV........
6 JOINT STRIKE 0 29,400 29,400
FIGHTER CV........
7 JSF STOVL.......... 6 1,200,410 6 1,200,410
8 JSF STOVL.......... 0 143,885 143,885
9 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT). 19 1,487,000 19 1,487,000
10 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT). 0 45,920 45,920
11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 26 778,757 26 778,757
AH-1Z)............
12 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 0 80,926 80,926
AH-1Z)............
13 MH-60S (MYP)....... 8 210,209 8 210,209
15 MH-60R (MYP)....... 29 933,882 29 933,882
16 MH-60R (MYP)....... 0 106,686 106,686
17 P-8A POSEIDON...... 8 2,003,327 8 2,003,327
18 P-8A POSEIDON...... 0 48,457 48,457
19 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE... 4 819,870 4 819,870
20 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE... 0 225,765 225,765
OTHER AIRCRAFT
23 KC-130J............ 1 92,290 1 92,290
26 MQ-4 TRITON........ 0 37,445 37,445
27 MQ-8 UAV........... 0 40,663 40,663
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
29 EA-6 SERIES........ 0 10,993 10,993
30 AEA SYSTEMS........ 0 34,768 34,768
31 AV-8 SERIES........ 0 65,472 65,472
32 ADVERSARY.......... 0 8,418 8,418
33 F-18 SERIES........ 0 679,177 679,177
34 H-46 SERIES........ 0 480 480
36 H-53 SERIES........ 0 38,159 38,159
37 SH-60 SERIES....... 0 108,850 108,850
38 H-1 SERIES......... 0 45,033 45,033
39 EP-3 SERIES........ 0 32,890 20,000 52,890
SPIRAL 3 & ELINT [20,000]
KITS............
40 P-3 SERIES......... 0 2,823 2,823
41 E-2 SERIES......... 0 21,208 21,208
42 TRAINER A/C SERIES. 0 12,608 12,608
44 C-130 SERIES....... 0 40,378 40,378
45 FEWSG.............. 0 640 640
46 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C 0 4,635 4,635
SERIES............
47 E-6 SERIES......... 0 212,876 212,876
48 EXECUTIVE 0 71,328 71,328
HELICOPTERS SERIES
49 SPECIAL PROJECT 0 21,317 21,317
AIRCRAFT..........
50 T-45 SERIES........ 0 90,052 90,052
51 POWER PLANT CHANGES 0 19,094 19,094
52 JPATS SERIES....... 0 1,085 1,085
54 COMMON ECM 0 155,644 155,644
EQUIPMENT.........
55 COMMON AVIONICS 0 157,531 157,531
CHANGES...........
56 COMMON DEFENSIVE 0 1,958 1,958
WEAPON SYSTEM.....
57 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 38,880 38,880
58 P-8 SERIES......... 0 29,797 29,797
59 MAGTF EW FOR 0 14,770 14,770
AVIATION..........
60 MQ-8 SERIES........ 0 8,741 8,741
61 RQ-7 SERIES........ 0 2,542 2,542
62 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR 0 135,584 135,584
ACFT) OSPREY......
63 F-35 STOVL SERIES.. 0 285,968 285,968
64 F-35 CV SERIES..... 0 20,502 20,502
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
65 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 1,229,651 -35,000 1,194,651
PARTS.............
Reduce rate of [-35,000]
growth in
replenishment
spares..........
66 COMMON GROUND 0 418,355 418,355
EQUIPMENT.........
67 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 0 23,843 23,843
FACILITIES........
68 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 15,939 15,939
69 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 5,630 5,630
CHARGES...........
70 SPECIAL SUPPORT 0 65,839 65,839
EQUIPMENT.........
71 FIRST DESTINATION 0 1,768 1,768
TRANSPORTATION....
AIRCRAFT 13,074,317 10,000 13,084,317
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
TOTAL.............
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
1 TRIDENT II MODS.... 0 1,190,455 11,000 1,201,455
Additional FCET. [11,000]
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL 0 5,671 5,671
FACILITIES........
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK........... 100 194,258 100 82,000 200 276,258
Maintain minimum [100] [82,000]
sustaining rate
of production...
TACTICAL MISSILES
4 AMRAAM............. 0 32,165 32,165
5 SIDEWINDER......... 167 73,928 167 73,928
6 JSOW............... 200 130,759 200 130,759
7 STANDARD MISSILE... 110 445,836 110 445,836
8 RAM................ 90 80,792 90 80,792
11 STAND OFF PRECISION 14 1,810 14 1,810
GUIDED MUNITIONS
(SOPGM)...........
12 AERIAL TARGETS..... 0 48,046 48,046
13 OTHER MISSILE 0 3,295 3,295
SUPPORT...........
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
14 ESSM............... 104 119,434 104 119,434
15 HARM MODS.......... 0 111,739 111,739
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
16 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL 0 2,531 2,531
FACILITIES........
17 FLEET SATELLITE 0 208,700 208,700
COMM FOLLOW-ON....
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
18 ORDNANCE SUPPORT 0 73,211 73,211
EQUIPMENT.........
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
19 SSTD............... 0 6,562 6,562
20 MK-48 TORPEDO...... 0 14,153 14,153
21 ASW TARGETS........ 0 2,515 2,515
MOD OF TORPEDOES
AND RELATED EQUIP
22 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS. 0 98,928 98,928
23 MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP 0 46,893 46,893
MODS..............
24 QUICKSTRIKE MINE... 0 6,966 6,966
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
25 TORPEDO SUPPORT 0 52,670 52,670
EQUIPMENT.........
26 ASW RANGE SUPPORT.. 0 3,795 3,795
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
27 FIRST DESTINATION 0 3,692 3,692
TRANSPORTATION....
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
28 SMALL ARMS AND 0 13,240 13,240
WEAPONS...........
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
29 CIWS MODS.......... 0 75,108 75,108
30 COAST GUARD WEAPONS 0 18,948 18,948
31 GUN MOUNT MODS..... 0 62,651 62,651
33 AIRBORNE MINE 0 15,006 15,006
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
35 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 74,188 74,188
PARTS.............
WEAPONS 3,217,945 93,000 3,310,945
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
TOTAL.............
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 107,069 107,069
BOMBS.............
2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 70,396 70,396
ALL TYPES.........
3 MACHINE GUN 0 20,284 20,284
AMMUNITION........
4 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 26,701 26,701
5 CARTRIDGES & CART 0 53,866 53,866
ACTUATED DEVICES..
6 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 59,294 59,294
COUNTERMEASURES...
7 JATOS.............. 0 2,766 2,766
8 LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE 0 113,092 113,092
ATTACK PROJECTILE.
9 5 INCH/54 GUN 0 35,702 35,702
AMMUNITION........
10 INTERMEDIATE 0 36,475 36,475
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION........
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 43,906 43,906
AMMUNITION........
12 SMALL ARMS & 0 51,535 51,535
LANDING PARTY AMMO
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 11,652 11,652
DEMOLITION........
14 AMMUNITION LESS 0 4,473 4,473
THAN $5 MILLION...
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
15 SMALL ARMS 0 31,708 31,708
AMMUNITION........
16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL 0 692 692
TYPES.............
17 40 MM, ALL TYPES... 0 13,630 13,630
18 60MM, ALL TYPES.... 0 2,261 2,261
19 81MM, ALL TYPES.... 0 1,496 1,496
20 120MM, ALL TYPES... 0 14,855 14,855
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 0 4,000 4,000
23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES. 0 16,853 16,853
24 ARTILLERY, ALL 0 14,772 14,772
TYPES.............
26 FUZE, ALL TYPES.... 0 9,972 9,972
27 NON LETHALS........ 0 998 998
28 AMMO MODERNIZATION. 0 12,319 12,319
29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 11,178 11,178
MILLION...........
PROCUREMENT OF 771,945 0 771,945
AMMO, NAVY & MC
TOTAL.............
SHIPBUILDING AND
CONVERSION, NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
1 CARRIER REPLACEMENT 0 1,300,000 1,300,000
PROGRAM...........
2 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 3,553,254 2 3,553,254
SUBMARINE.........
3 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 2,330,325 2,330,325
SUBMARINE.........
04 CVN REFUELING 0 46,000 46,000
OVERHAULS.........
Transfer from [46,000]
OMN, line 360...
6 DDG 1000........... 0 419,532 419,532
7 DDG-51............. 2 2,671,415 2 2,671,415
8 DDG-51............. 0 134,039 134,039
9 LITTORAL COMBAT 3 1,427,049 3 1,427,049
SHIP..............
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
10 LPD-17............. 0 12,565 12,565
14 LHA REPLACEMENT.... 0 29,093 29,093
15 JOINT HIGH SPEED 0 4,590 4,590
VESSEL............
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
16 MOORED TRAINING 1 737,268 1 737,268
SHIP..............
17 MOORED TRAINING 0 64,388 64,388
SHIP..............
18 OUTFITTING......... 0 546,104 546,104
19 SHIP TO SHORE 2 123,233 2 123,233
CONNECTOR.........
20 LCAC SLEP.......... 2 40,485 2 45,000 4 85,485
At USMC request [2] [45,000]
transfer from
RDTEN 53........
21 COMPLETION OF PY 0 1,007,285 1,007,285
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS..........
SHIPBUILDING AND 14,400,625 91,000 14,491,625
CONVERSION, NAVY
TOTAL.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
1 LM-2500 GAS TURBINE 0 7,822 7,822
2 ALLISON 501K GAS 0 2,155 2,155
TURBINE...........
3 HYBRID ELECTRIC 0 22,704 22,704
DRIVE (HED).......
GENERATORS
4 SURFACE COMBATANT 0 29,120 29,120
HM&E..............
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
5 OTHER NAVIGATION 0 45,431 45,431
EQUIPMENT.........
PERISCOPES
6 SUB PERISCOPES & 0 60,970 60,970
IMAGING EQUIP.....
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
7 DDG MOD............ 0 338,569 338,569
8 FIREFIGHTING 0 15,486 15,486
EQUIPMENT.........
9 COMMAND AND CONTROL 0 2,219 2,219
SWITCHBOARD.......
10 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE.... 0 17,928 17,928
11 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED 0 22,025 22,025
SERVICE LIFE
PROGRAM...........
12 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 12,607 12,607
EQUIPMENT.........
13 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 0 16,492 16,492
EQUIPMENT.........
14 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 74,129 74,129
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
15 LCS CLASS SUPPORT 0 36,206 36,206
EQUIPMENT.........
16 SUBMARINE BATTERIES 0 37,352 37,352
17 LPD CLASS SUPPORT 0 49,095 49,095
EQUIPMENT.........
18 ELECTRONIC DRY AIR. 0 2,996 2,996
19 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 11,558 11,558
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
20 DSSP EQUIPMENT..... 0 5,518 5,518
22 LCAC............... 0 7,158 7,158
23 UNDERWATER EOD 0 58,783 58,783
PROGRAMS..........
24 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 68,748 68,748
MILLION...........
25 CHEMICAL WARFARE 0 2,937 2,937
DETECTORS.........
26 SUBMARINE LIFE 0 8,385 8,385
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
28 REACTOR COMPONENTS. 0 288,822 288,822
OCEAN ENGINEERING
29 DIVING AND SALVAGE 0 10,572 10,572
EQUIPMENT.........
SMALL BOATS
30 STANDARD BOATS..... 0 129,784 129,784
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
31 OTHER SHIPS 0 17,152 17,152
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
32 OPERATING FORCES 0 39,409 39,409
IPE...............
OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
33 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS 0 118,129 118,129
34 LCS COMMON MISSION 0 37,413 37,413
MODULES EQUIPMENT.
35 LCS MCM MISSION 0 15,270 15,270
MODULES...........
36 LCS ASW MISSION 0 2,729 2,729
MODULES...........
37 LCS SUW MISSION 0 44,208 44,208
MODULES...........
38 REMOTE MINEHUNTING 0 42,276 42,276
SYSTEM (RMS)......
SHIP SONARS
40 SPQ-9B RADAR....... 0 28,007 28,007
41 AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW 0 79,802 79,802
COMBAT SYSTEM.....
42 SSN ACOUSTICS...... 0 165,655 165,655
43 UNDERSEA WARFARE 0 9,487 9,487
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
44 SONAR SWITCHES AND 0 11,621 11,621
TRANSDUCERS.......
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
46 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 0 24,221 24,221
WARFARE SYSTEM....
47 SSTD............... 0 12,051 12,051
48 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 0 170,831 170,831
SYSTEM............
49 SURTASS............ 0 9,619 9,619
50 MARITIME PATROL AND 0 14,390 14,390
RECONNSAISANCE
FORCE.............
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
51 AN/SLQ-32.......... 0 214,582 214,582
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
52 SHIPBOARD IW 0 124,862 124,862
EXPLOIT...........
53 AUTOMATED 0 164 164
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS)......
SUBMARINE
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT
54 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 0 45,362 45,362
EQUIPMENT PROG....
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
55 COOPERATIVE 0 33,939 33,939
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY........
56 TRUSTED INFORMATION 0 324 324
SYSTEM (TIS)......
57 NAVAL TACTICAL 0 18,192 18,192
COMMAND SUPPORT
SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
58 ATDLS.............. 0 16,768 16,768
59 NAVY COMMAND AND 0 5,219 5,219
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NCCS)............
60 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM 0 42,108 42,108
REPLACEMENT.......
62 NAVSTAR GPS 0 15,232 15,232
RECEIVERS (SPACE).
63 AMERICAN FORCES 0 4,524 4,524
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE...........
64 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 6,382 6,382
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
65 OTHER TRAINING 0 46,122 46,122
EQUIPMENT.........
AVIATION ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
66 MATCALS............ 0 16,999 16,999
67 SHIPBOARD AIR 0 9,366 9,366
TRAFFIC CONTROL...
68 AUTOMATIC CARRIER 0 21,357 21,357
LANDING SYSTEM....
69 NATIONAL AIR SPACE 0 26,639 26,639
SYSTEM............
70 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC 0 9,214 9,214
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
71 LANDING SYSTEMS.... 0 13,902 13,902
72 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 34,901 34,901
73 NAVAL MISSION 0 13,950 13,950
PLANNING SYSTEMS..
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
74 DEPLOYABLE JOINT 0 1,205 1,205
COMMAND & CONTROL.
75 MARITIME INTEGRATED 0 3,447 3,447
BROADCAST SYSTEM..
76 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I 0 16,766 16,766
SYSTEMS...........
77 DCGS-N............. 0 23,649 23,649
78 CANES.............. 0 357,589 357,589
79 RADIAC............. 0 8,343 8,343
80 CANES-INTELL....... 0 65,015 65,015
81 GPETE.............. 0 6,284 6,284
82 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM 0 4,016 4,016
TEST FACILITY.....
83 EMI CONTROL 0 4,113 4,113
INSTRUMENTATION...
84 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 45,053 45,053
MILLION...........
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
85 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL 0 14,410 14,410
COMMUNICATIONS....
86 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS 0 20,830 20,830
AUTOMATION........
88 COMMUNICATIONS 0 14,145 14,145
ITEMS UNDER $5M...
89 SUBMARINE BROADCAST 0 11,057 11,057
SUPPORT...........
90 SUBMARINE 0 67,852 67,852
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.........
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
91 SATELLITE 0 13,218 13,218
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS...........
92 NAVY MULTIBAND 0 272,076 272,076
TERMINAL (NMT)....
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
93 JCS COMMUNICATIONS 0 4,369 4,369
EQUIPMENT.........
94 ELECTRICAL POWER 0 1,402 1,402
SYSTEMS...........
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
95 INFO SYSTEMS 0 110,766 110,766
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
96 MIO INTEL 0 979 979
EXPLOITATION TEAM.
97 CRYPTOLOGIC 0 11,502 11,502
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.............
OTHER ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
98 COAST GUARD 0 2,967 2,967
EQUIPMENT.........
SONOBUOYS
100 SONOBUOYS--ALL 0 182,946 182,946
TYPES.............
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
101 WEAPONS RANGE 0 47,944 47,944
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
103 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT 0 76,683 76,683
EQUIPMENT.........
106 METEOROLOGICAL 0 12,575 12,575
EQUIPMENT.........
107 DCRS/DPL........... 0 1,415 1,415
109 AIRBORNE MINE 0 23,152 23,152
COUNTERMEASURES...
114 AVIATION SUPPORT 0 52,555 52,555
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
115 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS 0 5,572 5,572
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
118 SHIP MISSILE 0 165,769 165,769
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
123 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT 0 61,462 61,462
EQUIPMENT.........
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
126 STRATEGIC MISSILE 0 229,832 229,832
SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
127 SSN COMBAT CONTROL 0 66,020 66,020
SYSTEMS...........
128 ASW SUPPORT 0 7,559 7,559
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
132 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 20,619 20,619
DISPOSAL EQUIP....
133 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 11,251 11,251
MILLION...........
137 TRAINING DEVICE 0 84,080 84,080
MODS..............
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
138 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 2,282 2,282
VEHICLES..........
139 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 547 547
TRUCKS............
140 CONSTRUCTION & 0 8,949 8,949
MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
141 FIRE FIGHTING 0 14,621 14,621
EQUIPMENT.........
142 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 957 957
143 AMPHIBIOUS 0 8,187 8,187
EQUIPMENT.........
144 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 2,942 2,942
EQUIPMENT.........
145 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 17,592 17,592
MILLION...........
146 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 1,177 1,177
VEHICLES..........
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
147 MATERIALS HANDLING 0 10,937 10,937
EQUIPMENT.........
148 OTHER SUPPLY 0 10,374 10,374
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
149 FIRST DESTINATION 0 5,668 5,668
TRANSPORTATION....
150 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 90,921 90,921
SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
TRAINING DEVICES
151 TRAINING SUPPORT 0 22,046 22,046
EQUIPMENT.........
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
152 COMMAND SUPPORT 0 24,208 24,208
EQUIPMENT.........
153 EDUCATION SUPPORT 0 874 874
EQUIPMENT.........
154 MEDICAL SUPPORT 0 2,634 2,634
EQUIPMENT.........
156 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT 0 3,573 3,573
EQUIPMENT.........
157 OPERATING FORCES 0 3,997 3,997
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
158 C4ISR EQUIPMENT.... 0 9,638 9,638
159 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 21,001 21,001
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
160 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 94,957 94,957
EQUIPMENT.........
161 ENTERPRISE 0 87,214 -15,000 72,214
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY........
Program [-15,000]
reduction.......
OTHER
164 NEXT GENERATION 0 116,165 116,165
ENTERPRISE SERVICE
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
164A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 10,847 10,847
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
165 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 325,084 325,084
PARTS.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 5,975,828 -15,000 5,960,828
NAVY TOTAL........
PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 AAV7A1 PIP......... 0 16,756 16,756
2 LAV PIP............ 0 77,736 77,736
ARTILLERY AND OTHER
WEAPONS
3 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE 0 5,742 5,742
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
4 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT 0 4,532 4,532
TOWED HOWITZER....
5 HIGH MOBILITY 0 19,474 19,474
ARTILLERY ROCKET
SYSTEM............
6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT 0 7,250 7,250
VEHICLES UNDER $5
MILLION...........
OTHER SUPPORT
7 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 21,909 21,909
8 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT 0 3,208 3,208
PROGRAM...........
GUIDED MISSILES
9 GROUND BASED AIR 0 31,439 31,439
DEFENSE...........
10 JAVELIN............ 0 343 343
11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW.. 0 4,995 4,995
12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS 0 1,589 1,589
SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
H)................
OTHER SUPPORT
13 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 5,134 5,134
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS
14 UNIT OPERATIONS 0 9,178 9,178
CENTER............
15 COMMON AVIATION 0 12,272 12,272
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
16 REPAIR AND TEST 0 30,591 30,591
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
17 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 2,385 2,385
SYSTEM............
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
19 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 4,205 4,205
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
20 AIR OPERATIONS C2 0 8,002 8,002
SYSTEMS...........
RADAR + EQUIPMENT
(NON-TEL)
21 RADAR SYSTEMS...... 0 19,595 19,595
22 Ground/Air Task 2 89,230 2 89,230
Oriented Radar....
23 RQ-21 UAS.......... 3 70,565 3 70,565
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
24 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 0 11,860 11,860
25 INTELLIGENCE 0 44,340 44,340
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
28 RQ-11 UAV.......... 0 2,737 2,737
30 DCGS-MC............ 0 20,620 20,620
OTHER COMM/ELEC
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
31 NIGHT VISION 0 9,798 9,798
EQUIPMENT.........
32 NEXT GENERATION 0 2,073 2,073
ENTERPRISE NETWORK
(NGEN)............
33 COMMON COMPUTER 0 33,570 33,570
RESOURCES.........
34 COMMAND POST 0 38,186 38,186
SYSTEMS...........
35 RADIO SYSTEMS...... 0 64,494 64,494
36 COMM SWITCHING & 0 72,956 72,956
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
37 COMM & ELEC 0 43,317 43,317
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
37A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 2,498 2,498
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
38 COMMERCIAL 0 332 332
PASSENGER VEHICLES
39 COMMERCIAL CARGO 0 11,035 11,035
VEHICLES..........
TACTICAL VEHICLES
40 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV 0 57,255 57,255
(MYP).............
41 MOTOR TRANSPORT 0 938 938
MODIFICATIONS.....
44 JOINT LIGHT 7 7,500 7 7,500
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
45 FAMILY OF TACTICAL 0 10,179 10,179
TRAILERS..........
OTHER SUPPORT
46 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 11,023 11,023
MILLION...........
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
47 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 994 994
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT............
48 BULK LIQUID 0 1,256 1,256
EQUIPMENT.........
49 TACTICAL FUEL 0 3,750 3,750
SYSTEMS...........
50 POWER EQUIPMENT 0 8,985 2,900 11,885
ASSORTED..........
USMC unfunded [2,900]
priority........
51 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT 0 4,418 4,418
EQUIPMENT.........
52 EOD SYSTEMS........ 0 6,528 6,528
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
53 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 26,510 26,510
EQUIPMENT.........
54 GARRISON MOBILE 0 1,910 1,910
ENGINEER EQUIPMENT
(GMEE)............
55 MATERIAL HANDLING 0 8,807 8,807
EQUIP.............
56 FIRST DESTINATION 0 128 128
TRANSPORTATION....
GENERAL PROPERTY
58 TRAINING DEVICES... 0 3,412 3,412
59 CONTAINER FAMILY... 0 1,662 1,662
60 FAMILY OF 0 3,669 3,669
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.........
62 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 4,272 4,272
MILLION...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
63 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 16,210 16,210
PARTS.............
PROCUREMENT, MARINE 983,352 2,900 986,252
CORPS TOTAL.......
SUBTOTAL, 38,424,012 181,900 38,605,912
DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY..............
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
1 F-35............... 26 3,553,046 26 3,553,046
2 F-35............... 0 291,880 291,880
3 KC-46A TANKER...... 7 1,582,685 7 1,582,685
OTHER AIRLIFT
4 C-130J............. 7 482,396 7 482,396
5 C-130J............. 0 140,000 140,000
6 HC-130J............ 4 332,024 4 332,024
7 HC-130J............ 0 50,000 50,000
8 MC-130J............ 2 190,971 2 190,971
9 MC-130J............ 0 80,000 80,000
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
12 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/ 6 2,562 6 2,562
C.................
OTHER AIRCRAFT
13 TARGET DRONES...... 37 98,576 37 98,576
16 RQ-4............... 0 54,475 -10,000 44,475
Delayed trainer. [-10,000]
17 AC-130J............ 0 1 1
18 MQ-9............... 12 240,218 -37,800 12 202,418
Use available [-37,800]
prior year funds
for FY 15
requirements....
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
20 B-2A............... 0 23,865 23,865
21 B-1B............... 0 140,252 140,252
22 B-52............... 0 180,148 180,148
23 LARGE AIRCRAFT 0 13,159 13,159
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES...
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
25 F-15............... 0 387,314 387,314
26 F-16............... 0 12,336 12,336
27 F-22A.............. 0 180,207 180,207
28 F-35 MODIFICATIONS. 0 187,646 187,646
29 INCREMENT 3.2B..... 0 28,500 28,500
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
30 C-5................ 0 14,731 14,731
31 C-5M............... 0 331,466 -50,000 281,466
Delayed [-50,000]
installation of
RERP kits.......
33 C-17A.............. 0 127,494 127,494
34 C-21............... 0 264 264
35 C-32A.............. 0 8,767 8,767
36 C-37A.............. 0 18,457 18,457
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
38 GLIDER MODS........ 0 132 132
39 T-6................ 0 14,486 14,486
40 T-1................ 0 7,650 7,650
41 T-38............... 0 34,845 34,845
OTHER AIRCRAFT
42 U-2 MODS........... 0 64,300 64,300
Keep U-2 rather [64,300]
than enhance
Global Hawk
Block 30........
44 KC-10A (ATCA)...... 0 34,313 34,313
45 C-12............... 0 1,960 1,960
48 VC-25A MOD......... 0 1,072 1,072
49 C-40............... 0 7,292 7,292
50 C-130.............. 0 35,869 47,600 83,469
C-130 enigine [22,600]
upgrades........
C-130 avionics [25,000]
modernization
program.........
51 C-130J MODS........ 0 7,919 7,919
52 C-135.............. 0 63,568 63,568
53 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 0 57,828 57,828
54 RC-135............. 0 152,746 152,746
55 E-3................ 0 16,491 16,491
56 E-4................ 0 22,341 22,341
58 AIRBORNE WARNING 0 160,284 160,284
AND CONTROL SYSTEM
59 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 32,026 32,026
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
60 H-1................ 0 8,237 8,237
61 H-60............... 0 60,110 60,110
62 RQ-4 MODS.......... 0 21,354 21,354
63 HC/MC-130 0 1,902 1,902
MODIFICATIONS.....
64 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 32,106 32,106
65 MQ-1 MODS.......... 0 4,755 4,755
66 MQ-9 MODS.......... 0 155,445 -30,000 125,445
Lynx radar...... [-30,000]
69 CV-22 MODS......... 0 74,874 74,874
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
70 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 466,562 466,562
REPAIR PARTS......
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
71 AIRCRAFT 0 22,470 22,470
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
74 B-2A............... 0 44,793 44,793
75 B-52............... 0 5,249 5,249
77 C-17A.............. 0 20,110 20,110
78 CV-22 POST 0 16,931 16,931
PRODUCTION SUPPORT
80 C-135.............. 0 4,414 4,414
81 F-15............... 0 1,122 1,122
82 F-16............... 0 10,994 10,994
83 F-22A.............. 0 5,929 5,929
84 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 27 27
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
85 INDUSTRIAL 0 21,363 21,363
RESPONSIVENESS....
WAR CONSUMABLES
86 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 82,906 82,906
OTHER PRODUCTION
CHARGES
87 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 1,007,276 1,007,276
CHARGES...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
87A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 69,380 69,380
AIRCRAFT 11,542,571 -15,900 11,526,671
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE TOTAL.......
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
MISSILE REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
IC
1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT 0 80,187 80,187
EQ-BALLISTIC......
TACTICAL
3 JOINT AIR-SURFACE 224 337,438 224 337,438
STANDOFF MISSILE..
4 SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X) 303 132,995 303 132,995
5 AMRAAM............. 200 329,600 200 329,600
6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 283 33,878 283 33,878
MISSILE...........
7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 246 70,578 -52,531 246 18,047
Delay in [-52,531]
Milestone C and
contract award..
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
8 INDUSTR'L 0 749 749
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION........
CLASS IV
9 MM III 0 28,477 28,477
MODIFICATIONS.....
10 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 0 276 276
11 AGM-88A HARM....... 0 297 297
12 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE 0 16,083 16,083
MISSILE (ALCM)....
13 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 0 6,924 6,924
MISSILE SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
14 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 87,366 87,366
REPAIR PARTS......
SPACE PROGRAMS
15 ADVANCED EHF....... 0 298,890 298,890
16 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER 0 38,971 38,971
SATELLITES(SPACE).
17 GPS III SPACE 1 235,397 1 235,397
SEGMENT...........
18 GPS III SPACE 0 57,000 57,000
SEGMENT...........
19 SPACEBORNE EQUIP 0 16,201 16,201
(COMSEC)..........
20 GLOBAL POSITIONING 0 52,090 52,090
(SPACE)...........
21 DEF METEOROLOGICAL 0 87,000 -87,000 0
SAT PROG(SPACE)...
Program decrease [-87,000]
22 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 0 750,143 750,143
LAUNCH VEH
(INFRAST.)........
23 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 3 630,903 3 630,903
LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
24 SBIR HIGH (SPACE).. 0 450,884 450,884
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
28 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 60,179 60,179
PROGRAMS..........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
28A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 888,000 888,000
MISSILE 4,690,506 -139,531 4,550,975
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE TOTAL.......
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS............ 0 4,696 4,696
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 0 133,271 133,271
BOMBS
3 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 31,998 31,998
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 148,614 8,800 157,414
BOMBS.............
Readiness [8,800]
funding
increase--PACOM
unfunded
priority list...
5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 2973 101,400 2973 101,400
MUNITION..........
OTHER ITEMS
6 CAD/PAD............ 0 29,989 29,989
7 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 6,925 6,925
DISPOSAL (EOD)....
8 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 494 494
PARTS.............
9 MODIFICATIONS...... 0 1,610 1,610
10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 4,237 4,237
MILLION...........
FLARES
11 FLARES............. 0 86,101 86,101
FUZES
12 FUZES.............. 0 103,417 103,417
SMALL ARMS
13 SMALL ARMS......... 0 24,648 24,648
PROCUREMENT OF 677,400 8,800 686,200
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE TOTAL.......
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 6,528 6,528
VEHICLES..........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 0 7,639 7,639
VEHICLE...........
3 CAP VEHICLES....... 0 961 961
4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 11,027 11,027
MILLION...........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 SECURITY AND 0 4,447 4,447
TACTICAL VEHICLES.
6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 693 693
MILLION...........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 0 10,152 10,152
RESCUE VEHICLES...
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 15,108 15,108
MILLION...........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & 0 10,212 10,212
CLEANING EQUIP....
10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 57,049 57,049
MILLION...........
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
11 COMSEC EQUIPMENT... 0 106,182 106,182
12 MODIFICATIONS 0 1,363 1,363
(COMSEC)..........
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
13 INTELLIGENCE 0 2,832 2,832
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
14 INTELLIGENCE COMM 0 32,329 -3,000 29,329
EQUIPMENT.........
NCCT............ [-3,000]
16 MISSION PLANNING 0 15,649 15,649
SYSTEMS...........
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
17 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 42,200 42,200
& LANDING SYS.....
18 NATIONAL AIRSPACE 0 6,333 6,333
SYSTEM............
19 BATTLE CONTROL 0 2,708 2,708
SYSTEM--FIXED.....
20 THEATER AIR CONTROL 0 50,033 50,033
SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
21 WEATHER OBSERVATION 0 16,348 16,348
FORECAST..........
22 STRATEGIC COMMAND 0 139,984 139,984
AND CONTROL.......
23 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 0 20,101 20,101
COMPLEX...........
26 INTEGRATED STRAT 0 9,060 9,060
PLAN & ANALY
NETWORK (ISPAN)...
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
27 GENERAL INFORMATION 0 39,100 39,100
TECHNOLOGY........
28 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & 0 19,010 19,010
CONTROL SYS.......
29 MOBILITY COMMAND 0 11,462 11,462
AND CONTROL.......
30 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 0 37,426 37,426
SECURITY SYSTEM...
31 COMBAT TRAINING 0 26,634 26,634
RANGES............
32 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 0 1,289 1,289
EMERGENCY COMM N..
33 C3 COUNTERMEASURES. 0 11,508 11,508
34 GCSS-AF FOS........ 0 3,670 3,670
35 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 15,298 15,298
ACCOUNTING AND
MGMT SYSTEM.......
36 THEATER BATTLE MGT 0 9,565 9,565
C2 SYSTEM.........
37 AIR & SPACE 0 25,772 25,772
OPERATIONS CTR-WPN
SYS...............
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
38 INFORMATION 0 81,286 31,300 112,586
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.
Transfer from [31,300]
OPAF 39.........
39 AFNET.............. 0 122,228 -31,300 90,928
Transfer to OPAF [-31,300]
38..............
41 USCENTCOM.......... 0 16,342 16,342
SPACE PROGRAMS
42 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 60,230 60,230
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
43 SPACE BASED IR 0 26,100 26,100
SENSOR PGM SPACE..
44 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE.. 0 2,075 2,075
45 NUDET DETECTION SYS 0 4,656 4,656
SPACE.............
46 AF SATELLITE 0 54,630 54,630
CONTROL NETWORK
SPACE.............
47 SPACELIFT RANGE 0 69,713 69,713
SYSTEM SPACE......
48 MILSATCOM SPACE.... 0 41,355 41,355
49 SPACE MODS SPACE... 0 31,722 31,722
50 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM 0 61,603 61,603
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
51 TACTICAL C-E 0 50,335 50,335
EQUIPMENT.........
53 RADIO EQUIPMENT.... 0 14,846 14,846
54 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL 0 3,635 3,635
EQUIPMENT.........
55 BASE COMM 0 79,607 79,607
INFRASTRUCTURE....
MODIFICATIONS
56 COMM ELECT MODS.... 0 105,398 105,398
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
57 NIGHT VISION 0 12,577 12,577
GOGGLES...........
58 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 31,209 31,209
MILLION...........
DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
59 MECHANIZED MATERIAL 0 7,670 7,670
HANDLING EQUIP....
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
60 BASE PROCURED 0 14,125 23,600 37,725
EQUIPMENT.........
ICBM training [23,600]
equipment.......
61 CONTINGENCY 0 16,744 16,744
OPERATIONS........
62 PRODUCTIVITY 0 2,495 2,495
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
63 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 0 10,573 10,573
64 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 5,462 5,462
MILLION...........
66 DARP RC135......... 0 24,710 24,710
67 DCGS-AF............ 0 206,743 206,743
69 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 537,370 537,370
PROGRAM...........
70 DEFENSE SPACE 0 77,898 77,898
RECONNAISSANCE
PROG..............
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
70A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 13,990,196 13,990,196
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
72 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 32,813 32,813
PARTS.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 16,566,018 20,600 16,586,618
AIR FORCE TOTAL...
SUBTOTAL, 33,476,495 -126,031 33,350,464
DEPARTMENT OF THE
AIR FORCE.........
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 1,594 1,594
MILLION...........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 4,325 4,325
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
3 PERSONNEL 0 17,268 17,268
ADMINISTRATION....
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
8 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 10,491 10,491
SECURITY..........
10 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 0 80,622 80,622
11 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 14,147 14,147
MILLION...........
12 NET CENTRIC 0 1,921 1,921
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (NCES)...
13 DEFENSE INFORMATION 0 80,144 80,144
SYSTEM NETWORK....
15 CYBER SECURITY 0 8,755 8,755
INITIATIVE........
16 WHITE HOUSE 0 33,737 33,737
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY............
17 SENIOR LEADERSHIP 0 32,544 32,544
ENTERPRISE........
18 JOINT INFORMATION 0 13,300 13,300
ENVIRONMENT.......
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DLA
20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 7,436 7,436
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
21 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 3 11,640 3 11,640
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
22 AUTOMATION/ 0 1,269 1,269
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DSS
24 VEHICLES........... 0 1,500 1,500
25 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 1,039 1,039
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
26 VEHICLES........... 1 50 1 50
27 OTHER MAJOR 3 7,639 3 7,639
EQUIPMENT.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY
28 AEGIS BMD ADVANCE 0 68,880 68,880
PROCUREMENT.......
29 THAAD.............. 31 464,424 31 464,424
30 AEGIS BMD.......... 30 435,430 30 435,430
31 BMDS AN/TPY-2 0 48,140 48,140
RADARS............
32 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE 0 225,774