[Senate Report 113-44] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] 113th Congress } { Report 1st Session } SENATE { 113-44 _______________________________________________________________________ Calendar No. 91 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 R E P O R T [TO ACCOMPANY S. 1197] on TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS ---------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATEJune 20, 2013.--Ordered to be printed NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
June 20, 2013.--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 KRISTEN 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 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.................................. 6 Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)................... 7 DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 8 TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 8 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 8 Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 8 Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 8 Multiyear procurement authority for E-2D aircraft (sec. 121)................................................... 8 CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 122)......... 8 Repeal of requirements relating to procurement of future surface combatants (sec. 123).......................... 11 Modification of requirements to sustain Navy airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 124)................................ 11 Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 125).......................... 12 Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 12 Tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force (sec. 131)....... 12 Modification of limitations on retirement of B-52 bomber aircraft (sec. 132).................................... 12 Repeal of requirement for maintenance of certain retired KC-135E aircraft (sec. 133)............................ 13 Prohibition of procurement of unnecessary C-27J aircraft by the Air Force (sec. 134)............................ 14 Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 14 Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft (sec. 151)................................................... 14 Sense of Senate on the United States helicopter industrial base (sec. 152)............................. 14 Budget Items................................................. 14 Army..................................................... 14 Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System................................ 14 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter......................... 15 Paladin Integrated Management........................ 15 XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system 15 Carbine.............................................. 15 5.56mm, 7.62mm, .50 caliber, and 30mm reductions..... 16 25mm reduction....................................... 16 Navy..................................................... 16 Sustaining capabilities of EP-3 and Special Projects Aircraft........................................... 16 Close-in weapon system modifications................. 17 Afloat forward staging base.......................... 17 DDG-51............................................... 18 Air Force................................................ 18 MQ-9................................................. 18 Reaper synthetic aperture radar...................... 18 C-130 aircraft modifications......................... 18 Defense-wide............................................. 19 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle......................... 19 Items of Special Interest.................................... 20 Army air-to-ground rocket and missile programs....... 20 Army and Marine Corps initiatives to improve armored vehicle fuel efficiency............................ 20 Close air support requirements....................... 21 Comptroller General review of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program.................................... 21 Comptroller General review of the Littoral Combat Ship program....................................... 22 Defense ground radar programs........................ 23 Department of the Navy strike fighter inventories.... 24 Ejection seats....................................... 24 Enhanced performance round versus special operations science and technology round....................... 25 F-35 production rate................................. 25 F-35 technical issues................................ 26 Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance....... 26 Joint high speed vessel.............................. 27 Joint surveillance/target attack radar system modernization...................................... 27 Joint Tactical Radio System handheld, manpack, and small form fit competition and contracting......... 28 Long Range Strike Bomber............................. 28 Modernization of B-1 bomber.......................... 29 Modernization of the B-52 Strategic Radar System..... 29 Paladin integrated management program................ 29 Report on the results of the Army voluntary flight demonstration...................................... 29 Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund.. 30 Small diameter bomb.................................. 31 UH-1N replacement strategy........................... 31 UH-72 light utility helicopter....................... 32 Uninterruptable power supply......................... 32 Use of commercially available systems to support certain Navy requirements.......................... 32 War readiness engine shortfall....................... 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 Conventional Prompt Global Strike program (sec. 211)..... 35 Modification of requirements on biennial strategic plan for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec. 212)................................................... 36 Extension of authority for program to award prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 213)............ 36 Five-year extension of pilot program to include technology protection features during research and development of certain defense systems (sec. 214)...... 36 Extension of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories for research and development of technologies for military missions (sec. 215).......... 36 Sustainment or replacement of Blue Devil Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance System (sec. 216)..... 36 Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs......................... 38 Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231)............ 38 Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232)............ 40 Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)....... 40 Additional missile defense radar for the protection of the United States homeland (sec. 234).................. 41 Evaluation of options for future ballistic missile defense sensor architectures (sec. 235)................ 41 Prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS program (sec. 236)............................................. 42 Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters........................ 42 Annual Comptroller General of the United States report on the acquisition program for the VXX Presidential Helicopter (sec. 251).................................. 42 Budget Items................................................. 42 Army..................................................... 42 Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project............ 42 Long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle............ 43 General Fund Enterprise Business Systems............. 43 Internet mapping..................................... 43 Navy..................................................... 43 Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development.... 43 LHA-8 design effort.................................. 44 Marine personnel carrier............................. 45 Air Force................................................ 45 Operationally Responsive Space....................... 45 Tactical data networks enterprise.................... 45 Tactical exploitation of national capabilities....... 45 Joint surveillance/target attack radar system........ 46 Air Force Applications Software Assurance Center of Excellence............................................. 46 Defense-wide............................................. 47 National Defense Education Program................... 47 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory......................................... 48 Applied research for the advancement of science and technology priorities.............................. 48 Automated software code analysis tool development.... 48 Counter terrorism, counter-insurgency, and the exploitation of human terrain in conflict.......... 49 Combating Terrorism Technology Support............... 50 Ballistic missile defense technology programs........ 50 Rapid Fielding....................................... 52 Networked Communications Capability Program.......... 52 Defense industrial capacity innovation and sustainment........................................ 52 CWMD Systems......................................... 53 Advanced sensor applications program................. 53 U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs.... 54 Advanced Innovative Technologies..................... 54 Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program focus areas................................ 55 Developmental test and evaluation.................... 56 Defense Technical Information Center................. 56 Conflict Records Research Center..................... 56 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle......................... 57 Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar....... 57 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs... 57 Items of Special Interest.................................... 58 Army Occupant-Centric Survivability Program.............. 58 Chemical and biological defense medical countermeasures strategy............................................... 58 Combat casualty care research............................ 59 Common kill vehicle technology program................... 60 High energy laser weapons................................ 61 Future Ground-Based Interceptor acquisition.............. 62 Hybrid Airships.......................................... 63 Implementation of Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan Recommendations..................... 64 Importance of preserving and maintaining mission critical information technology services........................ 64 Improved turbine engine program.......................... 64 Independent assessment of Army Distributed Common Ground System analyst tool integration........................ 65 Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) system......................................... 66 Metrics for evaluating Commercial Solutions for Classified............................................. 66 Military Scientists and Engineers........................ 67 Scientific and technical conferences..................... 68 Tactical power grids..................................... 69 Trusted microelectronics................................. 69 TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 71 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 71 Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301)............. 71 Subtitle B--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 71 Sustainment of critical manufacturing capabilities within Army arsenals (sec. 311)............................... 71 Strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 312)............................................. 71 Extension and modification of authority for airlift transportation at Department of Defense rates for non- Department of Defense Federal cargoes (sec. 313)....... 72 Subtitle C--Readiness........................................ 73 Modification of authorities on prioritization of funds for equipment readiness and strategic capability (sec. 321)................................................... 73 Strategic policy for the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of operating forces used to support overseas contingency operations (sec. 322)............. 73 Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 73 Strategy for improving asset visibility and in-transit visibility (sec. 331).................................. 73 Changes to quarterly reports on personnel and unit readiness (sec. 332)................................... 73 Revision to requirement for annual submission of information regarding information technology capital assets (sec. 333)...................................... 74 Modification of annual corrosion control and prevention reporting requirements (sec. 334)...................... 74 Subtitle E--Limitations and Extension of Authority........... 74 Limitation on funding for United States Special Operations Command National Capital Region (sec. 341).. 74 Limitation on funding for Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers (sec. 342)........................ 75 Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional Web Initiative (TRWI) (sec. 343)....................... 76 Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 76 Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms (sec. 351).................................... 76 Authorization to institute a centralized, automated mail redirection system to improve the delivery of absentee ballots to military personnel serving outside the United States (sec. 352)............................... 77 Budget Items................................................. 77 Army readiness funding increases......................... 77 U.S. European Command funding decrease................... 78 Navy readiness funding increases......................... 78 Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support.............. 79 Marine Corps readiness funding increases................. 79 Air Force readiness funding increases.................... 79 Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support.............. 79 Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers......... 80 U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region. 80 Department of Defense STARBASE program................... 81 Defense Security Cooperation Agency...................... 81 Funding for impact aid................................... 82 Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request.. 82 Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) funding decrease..... 83 Continuing support for Operation Observant Compass....... 83 Items of Special Interest.................................... 83 Additive manufacturing................................... 83 Advanced situational awareness training.................. 84 Air show support by the Department of Defense............ 84 Coal-to-liquid fuel technology developments.............. 84 Combatant command support agent accounting............... 85 Comptroller General of the United States review of United States Central Command................................. 85 Consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde............ 86 Contingency basing....................................... 86 Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management...... 87 Department of Defense and Department of Energy memorandum of understanding to enhance energy security............ 87 Energy metering.......................................... 88 Energy security assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review................................................. 88 Foreign exchange program for Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets and critical military language training... 89 Full spectrum operations................................. 89 Government Accountability Office readiness analysis...... 89 Intergovernmental support agreements with state and local governments............................................ 90 Light-weight ammunition project under the Defense Production Act, Title III authority.................... 90 Marine Corps core depot maintenance policy............... 91 Meals ready to eat war reserve........................... 91 Mission compatibility reviews............................ 91 Open pit burning of waste in Afghanistan................. 92 Organizational clothing and equipment.................... 92 Policies and procedures in handling of hazardous material shipments.............................................. 93 Readiness concerns under sequestration................... 93 Report by Installation Command on Kwajalein Atoll........ 94 Report on the identification of a hollow force........... 95 Review of defense headquarters and combatant command resources.............................................. 95 Small modular reaction study............................. 96 Tungsten rhenium wire for Department of Defense requirements........................................... 97 Unfunded requirements from the Service Chiefs............ 97 United States Africa Command............................. 97 TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 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)................................ 100 End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)............................................. 100 Fiscal year 2014 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)......... 101 Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations................. 101 Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 101 Budget Item.................................................. 101 Military personnel funding changes....................... 101 TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally............... 103 Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 501)..................................... 103 Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 103 Information to be provided to boards considering officers for selective early removal from the reserve active- status list (sec. 506)................................. 103 Removal of restrictions on the transfer of officers between the active and inactive National Guard (sec. 507)................................................... 103 Limitation on certain cancellations of deployment of reserve component units within 180 days of scheduled date of deployment (sec. 508).......................... 104 National Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 509)........ 104 Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 105 Expansion and enhancement of authorities relating to protected communications of members of the Armed Forces and prohibited retaliatory actions (sec. 511).......... 105 Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members (sec. 512)..................................... 105 Department of Defense Inspector General reports on compliance with requirements for the protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and their chaplains (sec. 513)............................. 105 Subtitle D--Member Education and Training.................... 105 Authority for joint professional military education Phase II instruction and credit to be offered and awarded through senior-level course of School of Advanced Military Studies of the United States Army Command and General Staff College (sec. 521)....................... 105 Authority for Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to support undergraduate and other medical education and training programs for military medical personnel (sec. 522)................................... 105 Expansion of eligibility for associate degree programs under the Community College of the Air Force (sec. 523) 106 Additional requirements for approval of educational programs for purposes of certain educational assistance under laws administered by the Secretary of Defense (sec. 524)............................................. 106 Enhancement of mechanisms to correlate skills and training for military occupational specialties with skills and training required for civilian certifications and licenses (sec. 525)................. 106 Coverage of military occupational specialties relating to military information technology under pilot program on receipt of civilian credentials for skills required for military occupational specialties (sec. 526)........... 106 Sense of Senate on the Troops-to-Teachers Program (sec. 527)................................................... 107 Conforming amendment relating to renaming of North Georgia College and State University as University of North Georgia (sec. 528)............................... 107 Subtitle E--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Military Justice Matters................................... 107 PART I--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response........... 107 Prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by individuals who have been convicted of certain sexual offenses (sec. 531)......................... 107 Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is accused of committing a sexual assault or related offense (sec. 532)................................. 107 Issuance of regulations applicable to the Coast Guard regarding consideration of request for permanent change of station or unit transfer by victim of sexual assault (sec. 533).......................... 107 Inclusion and command review of information on sexual-related offenses in personnel service records of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 534).. 108 Enhanced responsibilities of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office for Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program (sec. 535)................................. 108 Comprehensive review of adequacy of training for members of the Armed Forces on sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 536)................. 109 Availability of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators for members of the National Guard and the Reserves (sec. 537)......................................... 109 Retention of certain forms in connection with Restricted Reports and Unrestricted Reports on sexual assault involving members of the armed forces (sec. 538).................................. 109 Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual assault committed by members of the armed forces (sec. 539)......................................... 110 Sense of Congress on commanding officer responsibility for command climate free of retaliation (sec. 540)............................. 110 Commanding officer action on reports on sexual offenses involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 541)......................................... 110 Department of Defense Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault (sec. 542). 110 Advancement of submittal deadline for report of independent panel on assessment of military response systems to sexual assault (sec. 543)...... 110 Assessment of clemency in the military justice system and of database of alleged offenders of sexual assault as additional duties of independent panel on review and assessment of systems to respond to sexual assault cases (sec. 544).................... 111 Assessment of provisions and proposed provisions of law on sexual assault prevention and response as additional duties of independent panels for review and assessment of Uniform Code of Military Justice and judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases (sec. 545)......................................... 111 Assessment of compensation and restitution of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as additional duty of independent panel on review and assessment of judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases (sec. 546).................... 112 PART II--Related Military Justice Matters................ Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes (sec. 551)............ 112 Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual offenses to trial by court-martial (sec. 552)............................................... 112 Defense counsel interview of complaining witnesses in presence of trial counsel or outside counsel (sec. 553)............................................... 112 Mandatory discharge or dismissal for certain sex- related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and trial of such offenses by general courts-martial (sec. 554).......................... 113 Limitation on authority of convening authority to modify findings of a court-martial (sec. 555)...... 113 Participation by complaining witnesses in clemency phase of courts-martial process (sec. 556)......... 113 Secretary of Defense report on modifications to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between military instructors and trainees (sec. 557)................................ 114 Sense of Senate on disposition of charges involving certain sexual misconduct offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice through courts- martial (sec. 558)................................. 114 Sense of Senate on the discharge in lieu of court- martial of members of the Armed Forces who commit sexual-related offenses (sec. 559)................. 114 PART III--Other Military Justice and Legal Matters....... Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 561).................................. 114 Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 562)........ 115 Prohibition of retaliation against members of the Armed Forces for reporting a criminal offense (sec. 563)............................................... 115 Extension of crime victims' rights to victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 564)......................................... 115 Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to eliminate factor relating to character and military service of the accused in rule on initial disposition of offenses (sec. 565)................. 115 Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness Matters.......................................... 115 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)................................... 115 Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572)................................................... 116 Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards........................... 116 Matters relating to Medals of Honor and other medals of high precedence for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 581)................................................... 116 Recodification and revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll (sec. 582)............. 116 Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Robert F. Keiser for valor during the Korean War (sec. 583)................................................... 116 Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Sergeant First Class Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 584)............. 116 Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 117 Additional requirements for accounting for members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing (sec. 591)................. 117 Expansion of privileged information authorities to debriefing reports of certain recovered persons who were never placed in a missing status (sec. 592)....... 117 Items of Special Interest.................................... 117 Availability of Assaultive Offender's Group Treatment program................................................ 117 Combat injured military technician (dual status) retention under Wounded Warrior Act authority.......... 117 Command knowledge of civilian convictions of service members for sexual assault............................. 118 Comprehensive Review of Department of Defense coordination and incorporation of civilian law enforcement best practices in sexual assault prevention and response........................................... 119 Department of Defense child development center personnel. 119 Department of Defense reports on sexual assault.......... 119 General and flag officer billets......................... 120 Medical management of sexual assault cases............... 120 Military dependent suicides.............................. 121 Prohibition of sale of sexually explicit material........ 121 Report to Congress on the implementation of the recommendations made by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission................................... 121 Report on whereabouts of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl..... 122 Retention, career progression, and promotion opportunities for female members of the Armed Forces... 122 Sexual assault first responder training.................. 123 Suicide prevention screening............................. 123 U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and Families Initiatives............................... 124 Veteran unemployment..................................... 125 TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... Fiscal year 2014 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)................................................... 127 Repeal of authority relating to commencement of basic pay for members of the National Guard called into Federal service for less than 30 days (sec. 602)............... 127 Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603)............................... 127 Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 127 One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611).............. 127 One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)... 127 One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................ 128 One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)................................. 128 One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)..... 128 Correction of citation for extension of reimbursement authority for travel expenses for inactive-duty training outside of normal commuting distance and additional one-year extension (sec. 616)............... 128 Expansion to all reserve components of stipend for registered nurses in critical specialties under health professions stipend program (sec. 617)................. 129 Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. Technical and standardizing amendments to Department of Defense travel and transportation authorities in connection with reform of such authorities (sec. 631).. 129 Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits... 129 Clarification of prevention of retired pay in version in the case of members whose retired pay is computed using high-three (sec. 641).................................. 129 Effect on division of retired pay of election to receive combat-related special compensation after previous election to receive concurrent retirement and disability compensation (sec. 642)..................... 129 Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support (sec. 643)................... 129 Periodic notice to members of the Ready Reserve on early retirement credit earned for significant periods of active Federal status or active duty (sec. 644)........ 130 Preservation of retiree dependent status for certain dependents upon death or permanent incapacitation of the retired member on whom dependent status is based (sec. 645)............................................. 130 Subtitle E--Military Lending Matters......................... 130 Enhanced role for the Department of Justice under the Military Lending Act (sec. 661)........................ 130 Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 130 Authority to provide certain expenses for care and disposition of human remains that were retained by the Department of Defense for forensic pathology investigation (sec. 671)............................... 130 Extension of ongoing pilot programs under temporary Army incentive to provide additional recruitment incentives (sec. 672)............................................. 130 TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 131 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 131 Pilot program on increased collection of third-party reimbursements for health care services provided in military medical treatment facilities (sec. 711)....... 131 Sense of Senate on implementation of integrated electronic health records for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 712)...... 131 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 131 Report on provision of advanced prosthetics and orthotics to members of the Armed Forces and veterans (sec. 721). 131 Items of Special Interest.................................... 132 Autism spectrum disorder services........................ 132 Education and training of the acquisition workforce of the TRICARE Management Activity........................ 132 Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild traumatic brain injury 132 Mental health counselors for service members, veterans, and their families..................................... 133 Ribonucleic acid research................................ 133 TRICARE appeals process.................................. 133 TRICARE emergency department utilization................. 134 Use of simulation technology in medical training......... 135 TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS................................................ 137 Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 137 Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to multiyear defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec. 801)........................... 137 Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 802)................................. 137 Report on program manager training and experience (sec. 803)................................................... 138 Subtitle B-Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs................................................... 138 Synchronization of cryptographic systems for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 821)................ 138 Assessment of dedicated control system before Milestone B approval of major defense acquisition programs constituting a space program (sec. 822)................ 138 Additional responsibility for product support managers for major weapon systems (sec. 823).................... 138 Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of Defense processes for the acquisition of weapons systems (sec. 824)............................. 139 Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations................................ 139 Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of contractor employees (sec. 841)........................ 139 Implementation by Department of Defense of certain recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States on oversight of pensions offered by Department contractors (sec. 842)...................... 140 Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 140 Extension of prohibition on contracting with the enemy in the United States Central Command theater of operations (sec. 861)............................................. 140 Prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 862)..... 140 Report on the elimination of improper payments (sec. 863) 141 Items of Special Interest.................................... 141 Application of the Berry Amendment to the acquisition of athletic footwear in the Department of Defense......... 141 Clarification pertaining to small business contracting requiring a written justification and approval......... 141 Competition in the development and procurement of training systems....................................... 142 Comptroller General of the United States report on best value competitive source selection techniques.......... 142 Comptroller General of the United States report on in- line management process for the acquisition process.... 143 Comptroller General report on process and procedures for identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major development and procurement programs................... 143 Report on the configuration steering boards.............. 143 Required goals for future Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness reports...................................... 144 TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 147 Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 147 Under Secretary of Defense for Management (sec. 901)..... 147 Supervision of Command Acquisition Executive of the United States Special Operations Command by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec. 902)................................... 148 Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System (sec. 903).......... 149 Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 904).............. 149 Streamlining of Department of Defense management headquarters (sec. 905)................................ 149 Update of statutory statement of functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to doctrine, training, and education (sec. 906)........... 150 Modification of reference to major Department of Defense headquarters activities instruction (sec. 907)......... 150 Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 150 Limitation on use of funds for Space Protection Program (sec. 921)............................................. 150 Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters..................... 150 Personnel security (sec. 931)............................ 150 Reports on clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 932)............................................. 152 Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft (sec. 933) 152 Plan for transfer of Air Force C-12 Liberty Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 934)... 153 Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters....................... 154 Authorities, capabilities, and oversight of United States Cyber Command (sec. 941)............................... 154 Joint software assurance center for the Department of Defense (sec. 942)..................................... 155 Supervision of the acquisition of cloud computing capabilities for intelligence analysis (sec. 943)...... 156 Cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense weapons systems and tactical communications systems (sec. 944). 157 Strategy on use of the reserve components of the Armed Forces to support Department of Defense cyber missions (sec. 945)............................................. 158 Control of the proliferation of cyber weapons (sec. 946). 159 Integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 947)............................................. 160 Centers of Academic Excellence for Information Assurance matters (sec. 948)..................................... 160 Items of Special Interest.................................... 162 Assessment of multi-year procurement of GPS III satellites............................................. 162 Assessment of the costs, risks, and benefits of storage on produced satellites................................. 162 Core staff of the National Reconnaissance Office......... 162 Estimated cost to relocate spectrum...................... 163 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle........................ 163 Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program..... 164 Mainframe computer security.............................. 164 Modernization of Defense Support Program Mobile Ground System................................................. 165 Payload processing services.............................. 165 Report on disaggregation and payload hosting............. 165 Report on Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Command Terminals for airborne platforms....................... 165 Report on North Korea's ability to develop a functional nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missile............. 166 Report on space situational awareness.................... 167 Satellite communications strategy........................ 167 Satellite control system modernization plan.............. 168 Space Based Infrared Satellite, GEO 5 and 6.............. 168 Strategic solid rocket motor industrial base............. 168 Trusted agent for spectrum............................... 168 TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 171 Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 171 General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 171 Department of Defense Readiness Restoration Fund (sec. 1002).................................................. 171 Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 171 Extension of authority to support the unified counter- drug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011).................................................. 171 Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter- terrorism activities (sec. 1012)....................... 172 Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 1013)................ 172 Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 172 Modification of requirements for annual long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels (sec. 1021)...... 172 Report on naval vessels and the Force Structure Assessment (sec. 1022)................................. 172 Repeal of policy relating to propulsion systems of any new class of major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy (sec. 1023)........... 174 Clarification of sole ownership resulting from ship donations at no cost to the Navy (sec. 1024)........... 175 Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 175 Transfers to foreign countries of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031).................................................. 175 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. 1032).................................. 176 Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033).................................. 176 Clarification of procedures for use of alternate members on military commissions (sec. 1034).................... 177 Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces................................... 177 Modification of responsibilities and reporting requirements of Nuclear Weapons Council (sec. 1041).... 177 Modification of deadline for report on plan for nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex (sec. 1042).................................................. 177 Cost estimates and comparisons relating to interoperable warhead (sec. 1043).................................... 178 Sense of Congress on ensuring the modernization of United States nuclear forces (sec. 1044)...................... 178 Readiness and flexibility of intercontinental ballistic missile force (sec. 1045).............................. 178 Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 178 National security spectrum strategy (sec. 1051).......... 178 Department of Defense representation in dispute resolution regarding surrender of Department of Defense bands of electromagnetic frequencies (sec. 1052)....... 178 Sense of Senate on parental rights of members of the Armed Forces in child custody determinations (sec. 1053).................................................. 179 Subtitle G--Studies and Reports.............................. 179 Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 1061).................................................. 179 Report on plans for the disposition of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle fleet (sec. 1062)............. 179 Report on foreign language support contracts for the Department of Defense (sec. 1063)...................... 179 Civil Air Patrol (sec. 1064)............................. 180 Eagle Vision system (sec. 1065).......................... 181 Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 181 Extension of the Ministry of Defense Advisor Program (sec. 1081)............................................ 181 Items of Special Interest.................................... 182 Airborne Nuclear Command Post............................ 182 Air Force weapons storage areas.......................... 182 Army force structure and installation alignment.......... 182 Counter threat finance efforts........................... 183 Department of Defense support to U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas.................................... 184 Fiscal priorities........................................ 185 Ground Based Strategic Deterrent......................... 186 Impact of B-61 program delay............................. 186 Reforming the security classification system............. 187 Report on reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget to meet the savings requirement established by the Budget Control Act................................. 187 Strategic Automated Command Control System Modernization Plan................................................... 188 TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 189 Extension of voluntary reduction-in-force authority for civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1101).................................................. 189 Extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments to Department of Defense employees (sec. 1102) 189 Expansion of protection of employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities from reprisals (sec. 1103)...... 189 Extension of enhanced appointment and compensation authority for civilian personnel for care and treatment of wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces (sec. 1104)............................................ 189 Amount of educational assistance under Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense Education Program (sec. 1105).......................... 190 Flexibility in employment and compensation of civilian faculty at certain additional Department of Defense schools (sec. 1106).................................... 190 Temporary authority for direct appointment to certain positions at Department of Defense research and engineering facilities (sec. 1107)..................... 190 Modernization of titles of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities for purposes of certain civil service laws (sec. 1108)....................................... 190 Item of Special Interest..................................... 191 Department of Defense civilian leadership programs....... 191 TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 193 Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 193 Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1201)..................................... 193 Revisions to Global Security Contingency Fund authority (sec. 1202)............................................ 193 Training of general purpose forces of the United States Armed Forces with military and other security forces of friendly foreign countries (sec. 1203)................. 194 United States counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North Africa (sec. 1204)............................ 194 Assistance to the Government of Jordan for border security operations (sec. 1205)........................ 195 Authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability of foreign countries to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1206)................ 195 Support of foreign forces participating in operations to disarm the Lord's Resistance Army (sec. 1207).......... 196 Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq....................................................... 196 Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 1211)............................................ 196 Extension and modification of authority to support operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1212)........................ 197 One-year extension and modification of authority to use funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1213).................................................. 197 One-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop and carry out infrastructure projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1214).................... 198 Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States military operations (sec. 1215)........................ 198 Extension of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain United States military operations (sec. 1216)............................................ 199 Extension and improvement of the Iraqi special immigrant visa program (sec. 1217)............................... 199 Extension and improvement of the Afghan special immigrant visa program (sec. 1218)............................... 199 Sense of Congress on commencement of new long-term nation building or large-scale infrastructure development projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1219).................... 199 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 199 Two-year extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1231)............. 199 Element on 5th generation fighter program in annual report on military and security developments involving the People's Republic of China (sec. 1232)............. 200 Prohibition on use of funds to enter into contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1233)............ 200 Modification of statutory references to former North Atlantic Treaty Organization support organizations and related agreements (sec. 1234)......................... 200 Technical correction relating to funding for NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1235).................... 201 Strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials in the Middle East and North Africa region (sec. 1236).................... 201 Items of Special Interest.................................... 201 Inter-American Defense College........................... 201 Military-to-military cooperation with Somalia............ 202 Status of United States military engagements with Burma.. 203 Taiwan air power assessment.............................. 204 TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 205 Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec. 1301).................................. 205 Funding allocations (sec. 1302).......................... 205 Extension of authority for utilization of contributions to the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (sec. 1303) 205 TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 207 Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 207 Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................ 207 National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)................ 207 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1403).................................................. 207 Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense- wide (sec. 1404)....................................... 207 Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405).................... 207 Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)....................... 207 Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 207 Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421)............................ 207 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. 1422)...................... 208 Budget Items................................................. 208 Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan...... 208 Defense Health Program funding........................... 209 Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities............ 209 Items of Special Interest.................................... 209 Army industrial operations activity group................ 209 Concerns with working capital fund cash balances and fuel rate pricing........................................... 210 Joint Interagency Task Force--South...................... 211 National Guard Counterdrug Program....................... 211 TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS......................................... 213 Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 213 Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 213 Procurement (sec. 1502).................................. 213 Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503).. 213 Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504).................... 213 Military personnel (sec. 1505)........................... 213 Working capital funds (sec. 1506)........................ 213 National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1507)................ 213 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1508).................................................. 213 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense- wide (sec. 1509)....................................... 214 Defense Inspector General (sec. 1510).................... 214 Defense Health program (sec. 1511)....................... 214 Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 214 Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 214 Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 214 Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 214 Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531) 214 Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532)............. 215 Extension of authority for Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1533)........ 215 Budget Items................................................. 216 NATO Special Operations Headquarters..................... 216 BuckEye.................................................. 216 Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.... 216 Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.......................... 217 Item of Special Interest..................................... 218 Counter improvised explosive device training............. 218 DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 219 Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 219 Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 219 Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 219 TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 221 Summary.................................................. 221 Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)................................... 221 Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 221 Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........ 221 Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2104).......................... 221 Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project (sec. 2105).......................... 222 Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2004 project (sec. 2106).......................... 222 Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 projects (sec. 2107)................................... 222 Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec. 2108)................................... 222 Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2109).......... 222 Items of Special Interest.................................... 223 Access Control Point Equipment Program................... 223 Comptroller General review of litigation costs incurred by the Military Housing Privatization Initiative....... 223 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 225 Summary.................................................. 225 Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)................................... 225 Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 225 Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 225 Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 225 Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project (sec. 2205).......................... 226 Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2206).......................... 226 One-year extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2207).......................... 226 Two-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2208).......................... 226 Item of Special Interest..................................... 226 Townsend Bombing Range land acquisition.................. 226 TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 227 Summary.................................................. 227 Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2301)................................... 227 Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 228 Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 228 Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 228 Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2305).................................... 228 TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 229 Summary.................................................. 229 Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 230 Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 230 Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)...... 230 Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403).................................................. 230 Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 230 Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411) 230 TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM........................................................ 231 Summary.................................................. 231 Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)................................... 231 Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 231 TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 233 Summary.................................................. 233 Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations............................................. 233 Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 233 Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2602)................................... 233 Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 233 Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 233 Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 233 Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 234 Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 234 Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 2611).......................... 234 Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2612).................................... 234 Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2613).................................... 234 TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 235 Summary and explanation of tables........................ 235 Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701)....................... 235 Precondition for any future base realignment and closure round (sec. 2702)...................................... 235 Report on 2005 base closure and realignment joint basing initiative (sec. 2703)................................. 235 TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 237 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes............................................ 237 Modification of authorities to fund military construction through payments-in-kind and to use residual value payments-in-kind (sec. 2801)........................... 237 Extension and modification of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2802).............................. 238 Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 238 Authority for acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses associated with real property leases and easements (sec. 2811).................................. 238 Application of cash payments received for utilities and services (sec. 2812)................................... 238 Modification of authority to enter into long-term contracts for receipt of utility services as consideration for utility systems conveyances (sec. 2813).................................................. 238 Acquisition of real property at Naval Base Ventura County, California (sec. 2814)......................... 238 Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment................................................ 239 Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific Region (sec. 2821)............................................ 239 Modification of reporting requirements relating to Guam realignment (sec. 2822)................................ 239 Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 239 Land conveyance Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii (sec. 2831)............................................ 239 Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial transfer (sec. 2832)....... 239 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 239 Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (sec. 2841)........................... 239 Items of Special Interest.................................... 239 Department of Defense policy for sustainable buildings... 239 Homeowners Assistance Program............................ 240 Military Construction Project Data Sheets................ 241 Scope of work variations for military construction projects............................................... 242 Traffic safety........................................... 242 U.S. military posture and resiliency in the Asia-Pacific. 243 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 245 TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 245 Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations Overview................................................... 245 National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 246 Weapons activities................................... 246 Directed stockpile work.............................. 246 Campaigns............................................ 247 Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations.............. 248 Secure transportation asset.......................... 248 Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer............................................ 248 Naval Reactors....................................... 249 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............ 249 Nonproliferation and verification research and development........................................ 249 Nonproliferation and international security.......... 250 International nuclear materials protection and cooperation........................................ 250 Fissile Materials Disposition program................ 250 Global threat reduction initiative................... 251 Nuclear counterterrorism incident response........... 251 Office of the Administrator.......................... 251 Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 251 Savannah River Site.................................. 251 Waste Treatment Plant................................ 252 Hanford Site......................................... 252 Idaho National Laboratory............................ 252 Los Alamos National Laboratory....................... 252 Oak Ridge Reservation................................ 252 Office of River Protection........................... 253 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.......................... 253 Security............................................. 253 Technology Development............................... 253 Program Direction.................................... 253 Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 253 Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations................................................ 254 Establishment of Director for Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation in National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3111)............................................ 254 Plan for improvement and integration of financial management of nuclear security enterprise (sec. 3112).. 254 Certification of security measures at atomic energy defense facilities (sec. 3113)......................... 255 Plan for incorporating exascale computing into the stockpile stewardship program (sec. 3114).............. 255 Integrated plutonium strategy (sec. 3115)................ 256 Authorization of modular building strategy as an alternative to the replacement project for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3116)............ 256 Increase in construction design threshold (sec. 3117).... 256 Clarification of form of submission of cost estimates on life extension programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 3118)............................................ 256 Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 256 Assessment of nuclear nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3121)... 256 Modification of reviews relating to cost-benefit analysis of management and operating contracts of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3122)............ 256 Modification of deadline for certain reports relating to program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3123)............................................ 257 Modification of certain reports on cost containment for uranium capabilities replacement project (sec. 3124)... 257 Submission of interim report of Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3125)................................. 257 Subtitle D--Technical Corrections............................ 257 Technical corrections to the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (sec. 3131)......................... 257 Technical corrections to the Atomic Energy Defense Act (sec. 3132)............................................ 257 Budget Item.................................................. 257 Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund............................... 257 Items of Special Interest.................................... 258 B-61 Mod 12 life extension program................... 258 Review of National Nuclear Security Administration Capital Projects................................... 258 Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project..... 259 Assessment of Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities that will be transferred to the Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management........... 260 Travel by scientists and other technical personnel to conferences and other venues of benefit to the NNSA mission................................................ 260 Use of the term National Security Laboratory in the Atomic Energy Defense Act.............................. 260 TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 261 Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 261 TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 263 Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)...................... 263 DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 265 Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 265 Summary of National Defense Authorizations For Fiscal Year 2014 Table........................................ 267 National Defense Budget Authority Implication Table...... 273 TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 277 Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 278 Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102).................................................. 317 TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 327 Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 328 Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4202)..................... 359 TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 361 Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 362 Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4302)................................. 377 TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 387 Military personnel (sec. 4401)........................... 388 Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402)............................................ 388 TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 391 Other authorizations (sec. 4501)......................... 391 Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4502)............................................ 395 TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 397 Military construction (sec. 4601)........................ 398 TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 415 Department of Energy national security authorizations (sec. 4701)............................................ 416 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS......................................... 427 Departmental Recommendations............................. 427 Committee Action......................................... 427 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 429 Regulatory Impact........................................ 429 Changes in Existing Law.................................. 430 ADDITIONAL VIEWS................................................. 431 Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe........................... 431 Additional Views of Mr. McCain........................... 438 Additional Views of Mr. Ayotte........................... 442 Additional Views of Mr. Vitter........................... 448 Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Fischer, and Messrs. Vitter, Blunt, and Cruz........................................ 450 Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe and Sessions, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Fischer, and Mr. Vitter................... 453 Calendar No. 91 113th Congress Report SENATE 1st Session 113-44 ====================================================================== AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES _______ June 20, 2013.--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. 1197] The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original bill (S. 1197) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2014 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 2014; (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2014; (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2014; (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 2014; and (7) authorize appropriations for national security programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2014. Committee overview The United States armed forces have been involved in armed conflict since September 11, 2001. Now, after almost twelve years of continuous conflict, U.S. forces are drawing down in Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in Iraq. By the end of 2014, the United States plans to have completed the transition of security responsibility in Afghanistan to the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF). Already, there are clear signs that Afghan security forces are capable of taking the fight to the Taliban, and are doing so effectively. Nonetheless, the United States continues to face serious security challenges around the globe. In the Middle East, the situation in Syria continues to grow worse, with the death toll rising, the refugee population rapidly growing, the extremist al Nusrah Front expanding, the security of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile in doubt, and the risk of regional instability increasing, while Iran continues to flout the international community with its unacceptable pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. In the Asia-Pacific region, the dictatorial North Korean regime has made a series of belligerent declarations, while announcing its intention to restart plutonium production, testing a nuclear device, putting a satellite in orbit using technologies associated with long range ballistic missiles, and displaying a road-mobile missile launcher. Al Qaeda continues to demonstrate an ability to mutate and exploit safe havens in areas such as North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Yemen. While weakened, al Qaeda and its associated forces remain focused on carrying out terrorist activities against the United States and U.S. interests around the world. Here at home, the United States remains uniquely vulnerable to attacks on computer networks critical to our economy, to the provision of public services, and to national security. The men and women of our armed forces 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, the Congress, and the American people owe them a debt of gratitude for this service. To date in this First Session of the 113th Congress, the 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. Sustain the quality of life of the men and women of the all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and their families, as well as Department of Defense civilian personnel, through fair pay, policies and benefits, and address the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured service members and their families. 2. 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, and authorities they will need to succeed in future combat, counterinsurgency, and stability operations. 4. Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces to support the ANSF and Afghan Local Police as the lead responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan transitions to the ANSF. 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 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 the Department's programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 11. At the same time, the committee remains deeply concerned about the continuing impact of sequestration on the United States armed forces, and on U.S. national security. While the committee has endeavored to address some of the adverse impacts of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 on the Department of Defense, the bill recommended by the committee uses the budget level commonly recommended by the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives as a guidepost. None of these budgets accounts for the possibility of continued sequestration in fiscal year 2014. 12. Our senior military leaders have uniformly cautioned Congress and the American people that the continuation of sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will damage our security and harm the troops they lead. The Secretary of Defense testified that continued sequestration will ``require dramatic reductions in core military capabilities'' and ``the scope and activities of our [armed forces around the] world.'' The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned the committee that it will ``severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break faith with men and women in uniform.'' The Secretary of the Army told the committee: ``Simply put, to continue sequestration into fiscal year '14 and beyond would not only be irresponsible [and] devastating to the force, but it would also directly hamper our ability to . . . provide sufficiently trained and ready forces to protect our national interests.'' The Chief of Staff of the Army testified: ``The fiscal year '13 fiscal situation will have grave and immediate readiness impacts on all forces not serving in Afghanistan or forward in Korea--impacts which will have a significant impact well into fiscal year '14 and beyond. Just a few of the actions we will be forced to take are, for example, we'll curtail training for 80 percent of ground forces. This will impact our units' basic warfighting skills and induce shortfalls across critical specialties, including aviation, intelligence, engineering, and even our ability to recruit soldiers into our Army. . . . For fiscal year '14 and beyond, sequestration will result in the loss of at least an additional 100,000 personnel, soldiers from the active Army, the Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve. . . . Sequestration will result in delays to every one of our 10 major modernization programs, the inability to re- set our equipment after 12 years of war, and unacceptable reductions in unit and individual training. . . . It will place an unreasonable burden on the shoulders of our soldiers and civilians. . . . If we do not have the resources to train and equip the force, our soldiers, our young men and women, are the ones who will pay the price, potentially with their lives.'' The Chief of Naval Operations testified that sequestration ``would fundamentally change the Navy as currently organized, trained and equipped.'' If sequestration is allowed to remain in place in fiscal year 2014 and beyond, he told the committee: ``[O]ur Navy may be a fleet of around 230 ships. That would be a loss of more than 50 ships, including the loss of at least two carrier strike groups. We would be compelled to retire ships early and reduce procurement of new ships and aircraft. This would result in a requisite reduction in our end strength. Every program will be affected and . . . programs such as the F-35 Lightning II, next generation ballistic missile submarine and Littoral Combat Ship might be reduced or terminated. Inevitably, these changes will severely damage our industrial base. Some shipyards will not be able to sustain steady construction or maintenance operations and may close or be inactivated. Aviation depots will reduce their operations or become idle. Aircraft and weapons manufacturers will slow or stop their work entirely. In particular, the small firms that are often the sole source for particular ship and aircraft components will quickly be forced to shut down. Once these companies and their engineers and craftspeople move on to other work, they are hard to reconstitute, sometimes impossible, at a later date when our national security demands it.'' Even before the imposition of further sequestration cuts in fiscal year 2014, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the committee, the Navy will have to ``reduce intermediate-level ship maintenance, defer an additional 84 aircraft and 184 engines for depot maintenance, and defer eight of 33 planned depot-level surface ship maintenance availabilities. At our shore bases, we have deferred about 16% of our planned FY13 shore facility sustainment and upgrades, about $1 billion worth of work. . . . By the end of FY13, a majority of our non- deployed ships and aviation squadrons--nearly two thirds of the fleet--will be less than fully mission capable and not certified for Major Combat Operations.'' The Commandant of the Marine Corps stated: ``Sequestration will leave ships in ports, aircraft grounded for want of necessary maintenance and flying hours, units only partially trained and reset after 12 years of continuous combat, and modernization programs canceled.'' The result, he added, would be ``a lapse in American leadership'' that ``will have a deleterious effect on the stability of global order, the perceptions of our enemies, and the confidence of our allies.'' The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that as a result of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 alone: ``The Marine Corps will have 44 scheduled aircraft depot inductions across all type/model/series that will not occur as a result of sequestration reduction to the FY13 budget. Of the 44 aircraft, 23 are F/A-18A-D aircraft. This will result in less aircraft available for assignment to Marine F/A-18 squadrons and reduce the assets available for training and operational support. . . . The long term effect on non-deployed F/A-18 squadrons is the inability of the unit to achieve and maintain minimum combat readiness required for follow-on deployments.'' The Secretary of the Air Force told the committee that sequestration will ``severely degrade Air Force readiness.'' He explained: ``Lost flight hours will cause unit stand downs which will result in severe, rapid, and long-term unit combat readiness degradation. We have already ceased operations for one-third of our fighter and bomber force. Within 60 days of a stand down, the affected units will be unable to meet emergent or operations plans requirements. Lost currency training requires six months to a year to return to current suboptimal levels, with desired flying proficiency for crewmembers requiring even longer. . . . Depot delays will also result in the grounding of some affected aircraft. The deferments mean idled production shops, a degradation of workforce proficiency and productivity, and corresponding future volatility and operational costs. It can take two-to-three years to recover full restoration of depot workforce productivity and proficiency. . . . All of these sequestration impacts negatively affect Air Force full-spectrum readiness at a time when we have been striving to reverse a declining trend in this critical area. . . . Sequestration cuts to Air Force modernization will impact every one of our investment programs. These program disruptions will, over time, cost more taxpayer dollars to rectify contract restructures and program inefficiencies, raise unit costs, and delay delivery of validated capabilities to warfighters in the field. The drastic reduction to modernization programs reduces our Air Force's competitive advantage and decreases the probability of mission success. . . .'' The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force warned: ``Lost flight hours will cause unit stand-downs which will result in severe, rapid, and long-term unit combat readiness degradation. We have already ceased operations for one-third of our fighter and bomber force. Within 60 days of a stand down, the affected units will be unable to meet emergent or operations plans requirements. Lost currency training requires six months to a year to return to current sub-optimal levels, with desired flying proficiency for crewmembers requiring even longer.'' Our country relies on the men and women of our military and the civilians who support them to keep us safe, and to help us meet U.S. national security objectives around the world. We expect them to put their lives on the line every day, and in return we tell them that we will stand by them and their families, that we will provide them the best training, the best equipment, and the best support available to any military anywhere in the world. Sequestration in fiscal year 2013 is already undermining that commitment. The testimony of our military leaders is clear: if sequestration continues, our commitment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines--and our national security itself--will be severely damaged. 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 2014 was $625.2 billion. Of this amount, $526.6 billion was requested for base Department of Defense programs, $80.7 billion was requested for overseas contingency operations, and $17.9 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy. The bill authorizes $625.1 billion for national defense discretionary programs for fiscal year 2014. This total includes $526.6 billion for base Department of Defense programs, $80.7 billion for overseas contingency operations, and $17.8 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy. The Administration's fiscal year 2014 budget for national defense also included discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, discretionary programs that do not require further authorization and mandatory programs that are in current law. When these programs are added to the Administration's budget the request for national defense totaled $641.1 billion. The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this report summarize the direct authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2014 defense programs. The first table summarizes committee action on the authorizations within the jurisdiction of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending from the trust fund of the Armed Forces Retirement Home which is outside the national defense budget function. The second table summarizes the total budget authority implication for national defense by adding funding for items that are not within the jurisdiction of this committee or 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 Multiyear procurement authority for E-2D aircraft (sec. 121) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to buy E-2D aircraft under a multiyear procurement contract. The Navy estimates that it stands to achieve a roughly 10 percent savings under the multiyear approach, as compared to annual procurement contracts. CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 122) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) by: (1) in subsection (a)(1), striking ``$10,500,000,000'' and inserting ``$12,887,000,000;'' (2) in subsection (b), adding a new factor for adjustment allowing increases or decreases in the cost of the ship that are attributable to the shipboard test program; and (3) changing the heading of the subsection to reflect that the name of the program has changed from CVN-21 to CVN-78. The provision would require a quarterly report providing the CVN-79 program manager's cost estimate for CVN-79. The provision would require the Navy to halt payment of fee on any cost-type or incentive fee contract associated with CVN-79 until such time that the variance between the total program cost estimate and the mandated cost cap has been corrected. The changes in the CVN-78 cost cap are related to three major areas: (1) reflecting allowable changes in the original cost cap due to economic inflation, changes in federal, state, or local laws, changes in nonrecurring design and engineering costs attributable to achieving compliance with the cost limitation, and changes to correct deficiencies that may affect the safety of the ship and personnel; (2) cost increases from the shipyard, resulting from increases in labor costs, material costs, and design costs, offset by a reduction in shipyard's fee; and (3) cost increases in government-furnished equipment. The cost increases in the latter two categories are changes outside the original, allowable changes in the cost cap, and are troublesome. The Navy had envisioned the CVN-78 and CVN-79 (then called ``CVNX-1'' and ``CVNX-2'') as evolutionary ships that would implement new technologies gradually as they matured. However, the Department of Defense determined that planned incremental improvements for CVNX-1 did not justify the significant investments nor match the pace of technology, given the length of time needed to build the carrier. Instead, the CVNX-1 and CVNX-2 designs were combined into a single, transformational ship design, called ``CVN-21,'' with the intent to skip a generation of technology, while meeting operational timelines for delivery. This has resulted in cost increases in the shipyard, and costs increases in the new technologies developed and designed to be installed as government-furnished equipment. The shipyard has not been as efficient as it could be, but combining these two ships and maintaining the original construction schedule for operational reasons has resulted in reduced productivity and inefficiencies in the shipyard's effort. All told, this has resulted in roughly 40 percent of the reason to raise the cost cap. There have also been cost increases in the equipment beyond the control of the shipyard. These include the ``transformational'' technologies of the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), the dual-band radar (DBR), and advanced arresting gear (AAG). While each of these technologies represents an improvement in capability and promise substantial reductions in life cycle costs, collectively, these technologies resulted in roughly one third of the increase to the total construction costs of CVN-78. As a result of the scrutiny of the CVN-78 program, the Navy believes that they and the shipyard can deliver the CVN-79 within the cost cap for the program recently adjusted by the Secretary of the Navy. This derives from a number of factors, including: (1) CVN-79 construction will start with a complete design and a complete bill of material; (2) CVN-79 construction will start with a firm set of stable requirements; (3) CVN-79 construction will start with the development complete on a host of new technologies inserted on CVN 78 ranging from the EMALS and DBR, to key valves in systems throughout the ship; and (4) CVN-79 construction will start with a revised construction plan that emphasizes the completion of work and ship outfitting as early as possible in the construction process to optimize cost and ultimately schedule performance. The Administration and Congress chose to ignore the lessons repeatedly and painfully learned in previous shipbuilding programs that resulted in delays and cost increases. A decision to skip a generation of technology must be accompanied by an operational assessment of the need date for the operational capability and a plan to ensure new generations of technologies are developed, tested, and ready for installation at the optimum time during the construction of the ship. Unfortunately, the decision on the construction cycle for CVN- 78 construction was driven more by the need to replace the USS Enterprise at the end of her service life and the need to maintain workload and the industrial base of suppliers for the sole U.S. builder of aircraft carriers. The committee is committed to working with the Department of the Navy to ensure these lessons are not learned again in future Navy vessel construction. Repeal of requirements relating to procurement of future surface combatants (sec. 123) The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Under section 125, the Navy was prohibited from obligating or expending funds for construction of, or advance procurement of materials for, naval surface combatants to be constructed after fiscal year 2011 until the Secretary of the Navy had provided specific reports to Congress. The report submitted by the Secretary of the Navy to Congress of February 2010 provided the Department of the Navy's implementation plan to complete these reports. Modification of requirements to sustain Navy airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 124) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 112 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to require the Secretary of the Navy to maintain sufficient numbers of EP-3 Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II (ARIES II) Spiral 3 aircraft and Special Projects Aircraft (SPA) version P909 to support the wartime operational plans of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), and to maintain the capacity to support five EP-3s for allocation to the combatant commands under the Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP), until the Navy's multi-intelligence Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance System Triton aircraft with signals intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities reaches initial operational capability (IOC). The provision also would require the Secretary to upgrade the final (12th) EP-3 ARIES II aircraft to the Spiral 3 configuration, and to correct electronic intelligence (ELINT) obsolescence problems on both the EP-3 and the SPA aircraft. Finally, the provision would require the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to coordinate with the Commanders of PACOM and the U.S. Special Operations Command to determine requirements for the special capabilities provided by the SPA aircraft, and would require the Secretary to sustain sufficient numbers of SPA aircraft to meet those requirements until the Navy achieves IOC of a system with capabilities greater than or equal to the SPA. Section 112 of Public Law 111-383 was intended to prevent a trough in capabilities as the Navy developed replacements for the EP-3 and the SPA intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems. The committee is persuaded that the terms of that provision have not been effective in preventing such a trough. The Navy is planning to remove a large number of personnel from the EP-3 and SPA programs and to use those billets to stand up an early version of the Triton program. However, this version of Triton is purely a complement to the P-8 Maritime Patrol aircraft, and does not have SIGINT capabilities. The personnel reductions in the EP-3 and SPA fleets will have the effect of substantially reducing the number of aircraft that can be supported for GFMAP allocation and wartime operations plans. The multi-intelligence version of Triton, with a capable SIGINT suite, is not planned to achieve IOC until very late in this decade. Clearly, there will be a trough in ISR support for the combatant commands for a number of years if these plans are implemented. In addition, the ELINT systems on both the SPA and EP-3 aircraft are very old and pose serious obsolescence problems. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends authorization of funding to address these obsolescence problems, as well as to upgrade the final (12th) EP-3 primary aircraft authorization to the Spiral 3 configuration. Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 125) The committee recommends a provision that would require that the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the current concept of operations and expected survivability attributes of each of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) sea frames when they would be employed according to the concept of operations. When addressing survivability attributes, the committee expects the CNO's report to deal specifically with: (1) comparative assessments of the survivability of the LCS sea frames with the survivability of other Navy combatants and with the adversarial surface combatants; and (2) operational assessments of the core defensive capabilities of each of the LCS sea frames, especially when employed against air threats expected to face the LCS under the concept of operations. Subtitle D--Air Force Programs Tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force (sec. 131) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to consider, as part of the recapitalization of the tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force: (1) upgrades to legacy C-130H aircraft designed to help such aircraft meet the fuel economy goals of the Air Force; and (2) retention of such upgraded aircraft in the tactical airlift fleet. It would also require that the Secretary ensure that upgrades to the C-130H fleet are made in a manner that is proportional to the number of C-130H aircraft in the force structure of the active Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air National Guard. Modification of limitations on retirement of B-52 bomber aircraft (sec. 132) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 131(a)(1) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 109-364) by striking the term ``in a common capability configuration.'' The lack of a definition raises concerns about whether it could also apply to the aircraft's nuclear capabilities or other modifications and upgrades on the fleet. The committee notes that the President has yet to provide Congress the force reduction strategy to comply with the limits imposed by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), despite a requirement to do so by section 1042(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112--81; 125 Stat. 1575). Without such strategic guidance, the committee is unable to fully perform its oversight role, as well as evaluate and prioritize resources designated to support U.S. strategic forces. During a hearing on April 17, 2013, concerning Department of Defense nuclear force and policies, Senator Mark Udall, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Chairman asked Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon whether the fiscal year 2014 budget request reflected the New START force structure changes. Secretary Creedon responded that ``the way that the fiscal year 2014 budget request is structured is it allows both the Air Force and the Navy to continue their preparatory work that will support a decision that will be made in the context of fiscal year 2015 to implement either a reduction in the total number of deployed and total number of delivery systems. . . . The decision as to which of these options we choose has not been made yet, but the way that the '14 budget structure is designed is to preserve the option as we get closer in time, as we understand more about the pros and cons of each option, and frankly also as we get more into where the whole geopolitical situation is going, where we're going with further discussions with Russia, it allows us to maintain that flexibility for as long as possible before we make a decision.'' With the approaching New START deadline, it is more likely that the committee will be asked to consider changes to U.S. strategic force structure when it meets next year to review the fiscal year 2015 budget request. The committee believes it is of great importance that the President provide this report, as well as other relevant documentation--such as the report required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)--so that it may fully assess any proposed changes to U.S. strategic forces. The committee supports the Air Force's request that it adjust the current requirements relative to maintaining certain nuclear-capable bombers. However, given that the relevant strategic planning remains incomplete, the committee notes that any reduction, conversion, or decommissioning of nuclear- certified strategic bombers must comply with the requirements of section 1042 of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). Repeal of requirement for maintenance of certain retired KC--135E aircraft (sec. 133) The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 135(b) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). Section 135(b) requires that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain at least 74 of the KC-135E aircraft retired after September 30, 2006 in a condition that would allow recall of the aircraft to future service in the Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, or active forces aerial refueling force structure. Under the Defense Department's revised strategic guidance, the existing force of KC-10 and KC-135R tankers, along with modernization under the KC-46A program, the Air Force has sufficient tanker assets now and throughout the future years defense program to meet requirements without the need to reactivate any of the KC-135E aircraft. Therefore, there is little need to incur the expense of maintaining these 74 KC- 135E aircraft in a higher readiness status. Prohibition of procurement of unnecessary C-27J aircraft by the Air Force (sec. 134) The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the Secretary of the Air Force from obligating or expending any funds for the procurement of C-27J aircraft not already on contract as of June 1, 2013. Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft (sec. 151) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to buy C-130J aircraft under a multiyear procurement contract for the Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy. The Air Force estimates that the Department of Defense stands to achieve a roughly 9.5 percent savings under the multiyear approach, as compared to annual procurement contracts. Sense of Senate on the United States helicopter industrial base (sec. 152) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should take into consideration the health of the U.S. helicopter industrial base when building the Department's annual budget. Budget Items Army Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System The budget request included $142.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army, to procure four Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) aircraft. In section 934, the committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to transfer Air Force C-12 Liberty aircraft to the Army and terminates the EMARSS procurement program. However, the Army will require funds to convert the Air Force C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration to meet Army requirements. The committee directs that the EMARSS funds be utilized to convert the transferred Air Force C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration to meet Army requirements. Any funds remaining after all EMARSS conversions are complete may be used to recapitalize current Army MARSS aircraft. UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter The budget request included $1.0 billion in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for the UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter. At the Army's request, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in APA for the UH-60M Black Hawk and an increase of $20.0 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modifications and product improvement programs. Paladin Integrated Management The budget request included $260.2 million in Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM). At the Army's request, the committee recommends a decrease of $40.7 million in WTCV for PIM and an increase of $40.7 million in PE 64854A for artillery systems engineering manufacturing and demonstration. XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system The budget request included $69.1 million in Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system. The XM25 is a grenade launcher that fires a 25mm projectile selectively programmed to detonate in the air at a designated range. The XM25 is intended to provide infantry and other units with a more precise capability to engage targets fighting from behind terrain, walls, or other protections. The committee understands that prototypes of this weapon were acquired, initially tested for safety, and deployed to Afghanistan for a forward operational assessment. A malfunction during this assessment has raised very serious questions about the safety and effectiveness of the weapon. The committee further understands that the Army is in the process of opening consideration of other available or developmental grenade launchers that are capable of firing programmable munitions. Given the unreliable performance of the XM25 and the Army's review of alternative air burst weapon systems, the committee recommends a decrease of $69.1 million in WCTV for the XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system. Carbine The budget request included $70.8 million in Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the Army's small arms carbine program. The committee notes that $49.5 million of this would be for the procurement of a replacement carbine identified as the result of a competitive evaluation. The committee understands that the Army has reached a decision not to continue with the individual carbine competitive evaluation program. Therefore, the committee concludes that funds to procure a replacement carbine are no longer needed and recommends a decrease of $49.5 million in WTCV. The committee supports procurement of M4Al carbines as requested in the budget. Based on the Army's decision to terminate this effort, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to provide the congressional defense committees, not later than 90 days after termination, a briefing on the justification for this decision and a revised small arms modernization strategy. The committee believes that a stable small arms modernization program is essential and should be a key element of the Army's overarching modernization strategy moving forward. A revised small arms strategy should include a description of M4A1 procurements required annually to sustain the force until a next generation small arms program is established. 5.56mm, 7.62mm, .50 caliber, and 30mm reductions The budget request included $1.5 billion in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $112.1 million was for 5.56mm, $58.5 million was for 7.62mm, $80.0 million was for .50 caliber, and $69.5 million was for 30mm. The Department of Defense has identified specific amounts in these ammunition accounts, in the fiscal year 2014 base budget request, for reduction as a result of competition, reduced unit costs, and/or reduced requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $74.5 million in PAA: $25.0 million in 5.56mm, $5.0 million in 7.62mm, $25.0 million in .50 caliber, and $19.5 million in 30mm. 25mm reduction The budget request included $1.5 billion in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $16.5 million was for 25mm. The committee notes that per fiscal year 2014 Army budget documentation, the XM1083 high explosive air burst (HEAB) and the XM1081 target practice (TP) ammunition for the Individual Counter Defilade Weapon System are not approved for service use. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.3 million in PAA, 25mm: $8.8 million for XM1083 HEAB, and $1.5 million for XM1081 TP. Navy Sustaining capabilities of EP-3 and Special Projects Aircraft The budget request included in Aircraft Procurement, Navy, $55.9 million for the EP-3 series aircraft, and $3.7 million for the Special Projects Aircraft (SPA). Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of the Navy to sustain these two aircraft fleets until the end of the decade, when replacement programs are scheduled to achieve initial operational capability. To sustain the ability of these systems to support the combatant commands with the capacity and capabilities required, several actions are necessary. One, the Navy needs to complete the Spiral 3 upgrade to all 12 of the EP-3 primary aircraft authorization, rather than stopping at 11, as proposed in this budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $8.0 million for EP-3 series procurement. Two, due to the extreme ages of the electronics on certain sensors on these aircraft, the Navy faces serious obsolescence problems in the EP-3 and SPA fleets. The Navy's Multi- Intelligence Sensor Development project is developing sensors for the future MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system that could correct the obsolescence problems for the EP- 3 and SPA aircraft. The committee recommends authorization of $14.0 million for EP-3 series procurement, and $5.0 million for SPA procurement to procure and install these sensors, which will introduce new capabilities into the fleet before the Triton multi-intelligence version achieves operational status. Three, the committee recommends authorization of an additional $5.0 million for the SPA program office in the SPA procurement line to sustain engineering, integration, and technical services support. Close-in weapon system modifications The budget request included $56.3 million to purchase and install various modifications for the close-in weapon system (CIWS), including $7.7 million for reliability, maintainability, and availability (RMA) kits. The CIWS is the primary, last ditch self defense system in the Navy fleet. The Navy has begun experiencing reliability problems with the latest CIWS version, the Block 1B. To deal with these issues, the Navy has developed the RMA kit that will fix known reliability problems and also deal with issues of parts obsolescence. The Navy can install the RMA kits dockside, without having to send the CIWS or its modules to the depot. In addition, installing these kits will allow the Navy to extend time between major CIWS overhauls, while still maintaining an acceptable level of operational availability. The committee believes that the Navy should move more expeditiously on fielding these kits to the fleet, and recommends an increase of $6.4 million to buy 24 additional RMA kits. Afloat forward staging base The budget request included $134.9 million in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for the third mobile landing platform (MLP-3) for which the bulk of the funding was provided in fiscal year 2012. The request also included $524.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), to procure the fourth mobile landing platform (MLP-4). The Navy planned to use NDSF funds to complete MLP-3 as the first afloat forward staging base (AFSB-1) platform and use the SCN funds to buy MLP-4 as the second afloat forward staging base (AFSB-2). As a result of reviewing requirements for the AFSB program, the Navy has decided that some funding in the request needs to be shifted from the NDSF account to the SCN account, that some funds in the NDSF budget request are now not required to execute the AFSB program in either account. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase to SCN of $55.3 million and a decrease to the NDSF of $112.2 million. DDG-51 The budget request for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), included $1,615.6 million to purchase one DDG-51 destroyer, and $388.6 million in advance procurement to buy DDG-51 destroyers in later years. This would be the second year of a multiyear contract for the DDG-51 program. Congress added $1.0 billion to the fiscal year 2013 budget request to purchase an additional DDG-51 beyond the two DDG-51s in the budget request. After the implementation of sequestration earlier this year, the Navy found that sequestration left the Navy several hundred million dollars short of having enough funds to award the contract for the third ship. The committee specifically recommended multiyear procurement authority last year that allowed for buying this extra ship and believes that the Navy should buy the extra ship to help meet force structure shortfalls. The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in SCN for completion of prior year shipbuilding programs to help buy this additional DDG-51. Air Force MQ-9 The budget request included $272.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the MQ-9 program to buy 12 aircraft and to pay for various production support activities. According to program officials, the program has $30.0 million in fiscal year 2012 APAF funds that are excess to program needs, since some planned aircraft procurements for fiscal year 2012 were delayed until fiscal year 2013. These funds could be used to pay for other activities within the MQ-9 program. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in fiscal year 2014 for procurement of MQ-9, which the Air Force can offset with the available prior year funds. Reaper synthetic aperture radar The budget request included $35.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the procurement of upgrades to the Lynx synthetic aperture radar system for the Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). This request would be the first year of retrofits for what is planned to be a procurement costing $125.0 million over the future-years defense program. The committee recommends no funding for this program. There is insufficient justification for upgrading this system because field studies and Air Force subject matter experts acknowledge that the system is almost never used. Furthermore, the upgrade is intended to provide a rudimentary dismount moving target indication (MTI) capability, while the Air Force is separately funding a robust dismount MTI radar program for the Reaper UAV. C-130 aircraft modifications The fiscal year 2014 budget request did not request funding for the C-130 avionics modernization program (AMP), but included $9.9 million for communication, navigation, surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) upgrades and $4.3 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 avionics modernization program for C-130 aircraft until 90 days after he submits 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. Earlier this year, the Air Force contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to conduct this study. The Air Force indicates that the study results should be available later in calendar year 2013. The committee strongly supports modernization of the Nation's legacy C-130 fleet, and fears that the delay in the awarding the study contract will cause the Air Force to lose another year in modernizing the legacy C-130 fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $47.3 million in APAF to fund modifications of legacy C-130 with either: (1) the original AMP upgrade; or (2) an alternative program that would upgrade and modernize the legacy C-130 airlift fleet using a reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning systems. The use of these funds and the use of the funds for CNS/ATM and CVR/DVR upgrades included in the budget should be informed by the results of the IDA study. The committee directs that none of these funds be obligated or expended until 90 days after the Secretary submits the IDA report. The committee also reminds the Air Force that the restrictions in section 143 continue to apply. Defense-wide MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle The budget request included $1.89 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, for the acquisition and support of special operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is responsible for the development and acquisition of special operations capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. The committee approved an above threshold reprogramming of funds requested by the Department of Defense in January 2013 to provide for the development, integration, and testing of additional capabilities to address identified technology gaps on USSOCOM UAVs. The committee understands that this reprogramming only partially addressed such technology gaps. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $13.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, to field additional capabilities for the MQ-9 UAV. Items of Special Interest Army air-to-ground rocket and missile programs The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts to find and take advantage of opportunities to develop joint programs that can reduce costs and meet service requirements. In this regard the committee notes that the Marine Corps has developed a weapon system that transforms the standard 2.75- inch Hydra-type rocket into laser-guided precision munitions. The advantages of a smaller precision-guided rocket are apparent, not just in terms of reduced cost but also operational effectiveness as the lower weight of each rocket allows an aircraft to carry more of them increasing the number of engagements possible per sortie. The committee recognizes, however, that a new smaller, precision-guided rocket must be a capability integrated with each services' other air-to-ground rocket and missile portfolios. The Air Force, for example, is in the process of qualifying this precision rocket on a variety of its multi-role combat aircraft. Given efforts to date by the Marine Corps and the Air Force, and the potential for achieving a precision engagement capability at a significantly reduced cost, the committee is interested to know the Army's analysis of this capability as part of its portfolio of armed helicopter rocket and missile munitions. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to brief the congressional defense committees, not later than December 1, 2013, on the Army's assessment of its current and future requirements and capabilities for air-to-ground precision-guided rocket and missile munitions. Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office to provide the congressional defense committees, not later than December 1, 2013, with an assessment of each of the services' ground-attack rocket and missile programs. This assessment shall examine where there are potential redundancies in service air-to-ground rocket and missile programs; make recommendations where the services could benefit from a consolidation of these requirements and capabilities; and identify the savings, if any, associated with the consolidation of such programs. Army and Marine Corps initiatives to improve armored vehicle fuel efficiency The committee notes the commitment of the Army and Marine Corps to reduce the operational fuel consumption of their current and future armored vehicles. The benefits of lower fuel consumption without sacrificing performance include not only reduced cost, but also reduced vulnerability of theater logistics storage and resupply activity, and increased operational flexibility. This is consistent with congressional intent found in section 2911 of title 10, United States Code, requiring consideration of fuel logistics support requirements in planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes. The committee is aware of efforts on the part of the Army and Marine Corps to implement consideration of the fully burdened cost of fuel into its plans for reset, upgrade, and modernization of their armored vehicle fleets as well as in the requirements determination and development of their next generation armored vehicles. In this regard the committee is interested to learn more about Army and Marine Corps efforts to reduce fuel consumption that could result in near-term savings. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, or their designees, to provide the congressional defense committees with briefings on their plans and efforts to achieve improved fuel efficiency in their current armored vehicle fleets. These briefings, by armored vehicle type, shall include, but not be limited to, the Army and Marine Corps priorities and objectives, plans and schedules for research and development, investments to date and planned over the future- years defense program, government and commercial research and development efforts including testing results that illustrate technological challenges and potential, and an assessment of the competitive environment for development and production of capable and affordable technologies to achieve greater fuel efficiency. The Secretaries shall provide these briefings not later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Close air support requirements The Joint Strike Fighter is designed to replace the F-16 and A-10 in the Air Force inventory. The A-10 has served as the Air Force's primary close air support asset, having been designed for that specific mission with characteristics that permit it to operate and maneuver at low altitude and slow speeds. The aircraft is also heavily armored to ensure the highest survivability for the pilot and vital aircraft systems. To ensure that the Department of Defense is not heading toward a situation where there may be gaps in capability to meet close air support requirements when the A-10 is retired, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to conduct a study to determine whether there will be any shortfalls in capability that will be incurred when the Air Force transitions from a fleet having A-10 aircraft to a fleet consisting entirely of F- 22 and F-35 aircraft. If there are any gaps between capabilities and requirements, the Secretary of the Air Force should present alternatives for meeting those requirements. The Secretary shall submit this study with the fiscal year 2015 budget submission. Comptroller General review of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program The Navy is developing the Ford-class nuclear powered aircraft carrier (CVN-78) to serve as the future centerpiece of the carrier strike group. Ford-class carriers will introduce several advanced technologies that are intended to create operational efficiencies while enabling higher sortie rates with reduced manpower compared to current carriers. As discussed elsewhere in this report, however, these new technologies have led to cost and schedule problems in constructing the first ship of the class. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently reported on significant technology delays, construction inefficiencies, testing shortfalls, and cost and schedule pressures currently facing CVN-78. The committee remains concerned that these issues could delay and limit demonstration of eventual CVN-78 capabilities and potentially affect cost, schedule, and performance outcomes for the next ship, CVN-79. Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Secretary of the Navy to report what program management and cost control measures the Navy will employ in constructing the second Ford- class aircraft carrier. The Secretary of the Navy's report in response to that requirement identified a number of changes in the way CVN-79 will be built that will help improve on the performance on CVN-78. In light of these concerns, the committee directs the GAO to undertake a follow-on review of Ford-class carrier acquisition program. Specifically, the committee directs the Comptroller General to review: (1) program management and cost control measures the Navy plans to employ in constructing the CVN-79 ship, as identified in its May 2013 report to Congress, in order to determine the extent to which these may be effective in controlling costs. As part of this analysis, the Comptroller General should evaluate the Navy's plans for executing the detail design and construction contract for CVN-79, and should pay particular attention to components of the Navy's plan intended to accommodate remaining schedule risk in the CVN-78 building program; (2) sufficiency of the Navy's post-delivery test plans for CVN-78 in facilitating timely demonstration of ship capabilities. As part of this analysis, the Comptroller General should evaluate the extent to which land-based testing delays for critical ship technologies have complicated the Navy's planned post- delivery testing activities and schedule; (3) Department of Defense (DOD) analysis underpinning the Navy's current capability estimates for CVN-78, progress made in meeting the ship's capability requirements, and gaps that may exist between the likely performance of the ship and its major capability requirements; and (4) maturity and implementation of plans by the shipbuilder to manage the workforce during concurrent construction of CVN-78 and CVN-79. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to submit a report on his review to the congressional defense committees by April 30, 2014. Comptroller General review of the Littoral Combat Ship program The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is intended to be a relatively smaller, more affordable vessel than cruisers or destroyers that carries modular payloads supporting the anti-surface warfare, mine countermeasures, and anti- submarine warfare mission area. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently reported to the committee on significant concerns about the LCS program. In light of these concerns, the committee directs GAO to undertake a follow-on review of LCS acquisition program. Specifically, the committee directs the Comptroller General to review: (1) seaframe production and testing, including: (a) seaframe developmental test activities and changes made to correct deficiencies identified during testing to date; (b) weight management for both variants of the seaframe; (c) Navy plans for verifying survivability, including the use of surrogate aluminum structures; and (d) plans for achieving greater commonality between the variants, and progress made in executing such plans; (2) mission module development and testing, including developmental test activities and changes the Navy plans to correct deficiencies identified during testing to date; (3) lessons the Navy may be learning from the deployment of LCS-1 to Singapore; (4) results of Navy studies on LCS requirements and technical capabilities, and any recommendations for changes to the design and/or capabilities of either the current LCS configurations or potential future LCS configurations; (5) role of the LCS Council in overseeing LCS acquisition and fleet introduction. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to submit a report on his review to the congressional defense committees by April 30, 2014. Defense ground radar programs The Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S. Rept. 111-35) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) raised concerns regarding the requirements, capabilities, and affordability of the Marine Corps TPS-80 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR). While the TPS-80 G/ ATOR program has made progress recently, the committee notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of March 2013 titled ``Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs'' (GAO-13-294SP) found that the G/ATOR program has more than doubled in unit cost, total program costs, and research and development costs since the program began in 2005. The Senate report also noted that the Marine Corps was at that time reviewing the G/ATOR mobile ground multi-mode radar program for possible joint development with the Army. Now, each of the military departments is pursuing separate ground radar programs, including the Army TPQ-53, the Marine Corps TPS-80, and the Air Force TPS-78 and TPS-703. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has failed to find a material solution to meet common requirements for a mobile ground multi-mode radar capability and may be missing an opportunity to develop a joint program that meets the majority of service requirements while reducing unit costs and saving money. The committee believes that the fiscal realities demand that the services look for every opportunity to develop joint programs, reduce costs, and meet valid service requirements. Accordingly, the committee directs the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or designee, to provide the congressional defense committees a classified or unclassified briefing, not later than December 1, 2013, on the analysis, evaluation, and decision-making process of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council with respect to the validation and approval of separate requirements and acquisition programs for the Army TPQ-53, the Marine Corps TPS-80, and the Air Force TPS-78 and TPS-703. Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than December 1, 2013, an assessment of each of the services' ground radar programs. This assessment shall include a review of requirements and capabilities identifying redundancies, if any, and the degree of redundancy among the programs. The Comptroller General shall also include an assessment of the feasibility and acceptability of establishing a joint ground radar program and an estimate of program cost increases or decreases should such a joint program be established. Department of the Navy strike fighter inventories Throughout the past several years, the committee has expressed concern that the Navy is facing a sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D retire before the aircraft carrier variant (F-35C) of the Joint Strike Fighter is available to replace them. In any case, the F/A-18E/F will be a critical part of the Navy's fleet for the next 25 years, complementing the Navy's F-35C. The F-35C is expected to reach initial operational capability in late 2018. Additionally, the Navy now intends to inspect legacy F/A- 18A-D aircraft periodically above 8,000 flight hours, in combination with executing a service life extension program (SLEP) on 150 of those aircraft, in an effort to extend a portion of the inventory to 10,000 hours. As yet, the Navy does not have sufficient data to predict the failure rate for aircraft being inducted into the SLEP. The current SLEP engineering analysis has not been completed. In addition, the costs and schedules associated with the Navy's plans remain unknown. As a result, executing the Navy's plan could negatively impact the tactical aviation shortfall, as there are already reports of aircraft backed up at Navy depots awaiting parts and maintenance. The committee understands that more than 42 percent of the legacy F/A-18A-D aircraft, approximately 260 aircraft, are currently out of service awaiting some form of maintenance, inspection, or repair. The committee believes a strong carrier-based fleet is vital as part of the increased emphasis on the Pacific region. This emphasis requires the Navy to have a viable fleet of both F/A-18E/F and F-35C aircraft to avoid creating a risk for the Navy's future strike fighter force structure. Ejection seats The committee understands that aging and heavy operating tempo have caused metal fatigue and corrosion in legacy ejection seats. Moreover, the incorporation of helmet-mounted displays and devices creates a situation for pilots that the legacy seats were never intended to accommodate during an ejection event. This leads to increased risks for pilot survival during high speed ejections. The committee understands that newer ejection seats can effectively address these issues, while at the same time providing simplified maintenance and increasing aircraft availability. Furthermore, recent seat safety enhancement features provide for greatly improved safety for aircrew using current operational helmet-mounted displays, thereby reducing the possibility of head, neck, and spinal cord injuries. For these reasons, the committee encourages the Air Force to evaluate a program or programs to replace the 1970s-designed ejection seats currently equipping most legacy fighter and bomber aircraft, paying particular attention to improving crew safety and reducing operation and support costs. Enhanced performance round versus special operations science and technology round The committee notes that the Army has developed and begun to field a 5.56mm enhanced performance round (EPR) which has the potential to demonstrate improved performance against hard and soft targets, in addition to other small caliber ammunition. The committee notes that the Marine Corps has begun testing on the use of the special operations science and technology (SOST) round which also has an opportunity to demonstrate similar effects. The committee understands the Marine Corps is conducting a review and comparison of the EPR versus the SOST round. Accordingly, the committee directs the Marine Corps to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the status and progress of the EPR versus SOST round review no later than September 1, 2013. F-35 production rate The committee believes that the continued development and funding of all three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is critical to maintaining U.S. air dominance. The committee supported restructuring the program to keep production remaining flat for the past 4 years to reduce concurrency risk and allow the program to make additional progress in the testing program before ramping up production. The committee notes that the program has been executing close to the planned testing and development schedule. The Marine Corps will declare initial operational capability (IOC) in 2015 with the Block 2B software capability. The Air Force will declare IOC in 2016 with the Block 2B/3I software capability, rather than waiting for the Block 3F capability as previously planned. The Navy will declare IOC in late 2018 with the Block 3F software capability. Achieving these IOC dates depend in part on increasing production according to the current plan. With the program now achieving most testing milestones, the committee believes that the Department of Defense should seriously consider continuing with the current plan to increase production in fiscal year 2015 and beyond. F-35 technical issues In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Airland of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the F-35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) discussed the development issues which present the greatest technical risks to the program. Regarding the software, the committee notes that a critical design review (CDR) is planned which will shed more light on progress of the Block 3F software against the requirements and delivery timeline. Block 3F software provides the capability that will allow all three services to declare full operational capability. The committee directs the PEO to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the results of the CDR within 30 days of its conclusion. In addition to software, the PEO also highlighted other known technical risks to the F-35 program, to include the helmet mounted display system, the tailhook, the fuel dumping system, and the autonomic logistics information system. The committee directs the F-35 PEO to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the status of the risk and cost reduction efforts to these four systems within 30 days from the completion of any major test objective or risk reduction effort involving these four programs. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance In January 2012, the Air Force proposed the retirement of its RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft. The Secretary of the Air Force stated the reason for this decision was based on the operational capability and cost to operate and maintain the Global Hawk Block 30. Section 154 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Air Force to maintain the operational capability of each RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system through December 31, 2014. This committee understands the strategic importance of high-altitude surveillance and increasing demands for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) by the commanders of combatant commands (COCOM) around the world, both in permissive and non-permissive environments. The Senate report (S. Rept. 112-173) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (S. 3254) required the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to identify enduring requirements for persistent ISR, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide a long- term investment strategy for meeting that requirement to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees no later than May 2, 2013. The committee understands that the Department has had some difficulty in defining the terms of reference for the analytical effort that has resulted in delaying the report, but believes the Department of Defense should move expeditiously to complete these tasks. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide an update on the congressionally directed report immediately to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees, and the final report on COCOM peacetime and wartime requirements, and the long-term investment strategy for meeting those requirements, no later than February 1, 2014. Joint high speed vessel The Navy is procuring the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) to serve as an intra-theater lift asset. In a prepared statement to the committee earlier this year, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, United States Navy, talked about the new deployments of JHSVs and Littoral Combat Ships and said, ``[w]e will use these deployments to integrate these new, highly adaptable platforms into the fleet and evaluate the ways we can employ their combination of persistent forward presence and flexible payload capacity.'' To better understand the Navy's plans for the JHSV fleet, the committee believes that the Secretary of the Navy should identify: (1) the Navy's intent for allocating JHSVs among the combatant commanders; and (2) any overseas basing plan to support that allocation. Further, the committee believes the Navy should consider additional functions or capabilities that the JHSV fleet might provide. Some of these could include support to counterdrug or counter piracy operations, command and control for joint task force operations, to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations. The committee directs the Secretary to provide a report on these issues with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget request. Joint surveillance/target attack radar system modernization The committee is concerned about the continued long-term sustainment of the capability provided by the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) E-8 aircraft. The aircraft and sensors may need costly upgrades to keep the system relevant to the operational environment. The Air Force has completed an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to evaluate potential replacement platforms to perform the battle management command and control and ground moving target indicator (BMCC/GMTI) missions. These missions that support ground and naval forces are critical. The AoA recommends as the preferred option a combined solution of modern business jets, using a fourth generation sensor system already in development by the Navy and Global Hawk Block 40 remotely piloted vehicle. The analysis indicates that this option would offer the potential of significant lifecycle cost savings and improved sensor capabilities, if the Air Force could afford the up-front investment costs. Although the Air Force acknowledges the need for a JSTARS mission area replacement aircraft, the fiscal year 2014 budget request does not include a request for funding such an option. This committee is concerned that delays in commencing a program to replace and modernize the JSTARS capability could result in unfulfilled intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements and higher risk to operational forces. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report that would provide a detailed description of the Department of Defense plan to modernize the capability to satisfy the BMCC/GMTI missions. The Secretary is directed to submit that report no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. Joint Tactical Radio System handheld, manpack, and small form fit competition and contracting The committee has long supported and encouraged Army plans for a full and open competition at full rate production for the handheld and manpack radios of the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program. The advantages to the Army and the taxpayers of a communications system built upon non-proprietary, open- architecture technologies acquired through competition are apparent. The potential savings and technological performance improvements associated with competition among several tactical radio manufacturers could be significant over time. The committee is concerned, however, that a potential plan to award a 5-year contract to a single vendor will result in an uncompetitive and smaller tactical radio industrial base. This, in turn, could lead to the Army becoming entrapped in subsequent sole-source procurements that forfeit greater savings and improved technical performance that come with frequent competition. Accordingly, the committees directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review the Army's handheld and manpack radio competition and contracting plans and provide to the congressional defense committees an assessment of how they will achieve the objectives of increased savings and performance through competition among several vendors over the life of the JTRS program. The Under Secretary shall submit this assessment not later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Long Range Strike Bomber The committee is aware that the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force Chief of Staff have called for the development of a new stealth bomber as our nation's military posture transitions and focuses on emerging threats in both the Middle East and the Asia- Pacific region. A new stealth bomber is essential to deterrence and anti-access strategies in these regions. A new stealth bomber will continue to ensure that deterrence remains a viable tool of our foreign policy by providing the President and combatant commanders with the ability to hold targets at risk with a versatile platform that combines range, persistence, payload, and survivability. A new stealth bomber will be an indispensable foundation of future U.S. power projection. As the only new aircraft development program planned for the next decade, continued development of the new bomber is essential to maintain U.S. teleological superiority and a highly specialized workforce. Modernization of B-1 bomber The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the B- 1 bomber over the life of the airframe. The report shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2014. Modernization of the B-52 Strategic Radar System The current B-52H Strategic Radar System (SRS) is approaching the end of its useful life. The Air Force conducted an Analysis of Alternatives to evaluate potential replacements for this system. The Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives expressed concern in their reports accompanying the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Year 2013 regarding funding for the Strategic Radar Replacement (SR2) program. This committee remains concerned about lack of funding in the fiscal year 2014 budget, which would allow critical capability gaps, and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a detailed plan with timeline on how it will replace the SRS on all B-52Hs. Paladin integrated management program The budget request included $260.2 million in Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles and $80.6 million in PE 64854A for the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) self-propelled howitzer program. The committee notes the PIM program will soon be entering low rate initial production (LRIP). Over the past several months, the committee notes that the Army has taken several fact-of-life reductions to the program. The Army explains that these reductions are due to the extraordinary fiscal constraints of sequestration and overseas contingency operations funding shortfalls. The committee further notes that the Army intends to hold to the program's current schedule including the procurement of the full complement of the initial LRIP vehicles while still able to reduce LRIP procurement in the out-years. The committee fully supports the PIM program and expects the Army to continue to review the development schedule for other ways to accelerate the program while retaining cost and schedule. Report on the results of the Army voluntary flight demonstration The committee is aware that the Army is continuing its evaluation and consideration of the feasibility, affordability, and advisability of acquiring a new light armed scout helicopter to replace the current OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Since the cancellation in 2011 of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, the Army has been methodically working through an assessment of its light armed scout helicopter requirements and an analysis of alternatives across a wide range of operating concepts including manned helicopters, unmanned aerial systems, and manned-unmanned teaming. As part of a broader consideration of alternatives for what has become the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS), the Army conducted a voluntary flight demonstration of commercially available aircraft to refine its requirements determination process and explore how closely aircraft flying today compare to the capability of the Kiowa Warrior and could approach meeting the capabilities the Army has in mind for a light armed scout replacement. The committee is interested to learn more about the results of the Army voluntary flight demonstration and its contribution to the ongoing analysis of the feasibility, affordability, and advisability of replacing the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2014 that details the performance metrics demonstrated by each participant. The report shall also provide an estimate of the costs associated with the development and testing of each participant's aircraft for modifications and upgrades necessary to convert such aircraft to a fully militarized AAS. Finally, the report shall include the estimated schedule for competition, development, testing, and qualification of each aircraft overlaid on current timelines for Kiowa Warrior service life extension, safety upgrades, and modernization programs. The committee is aware that information regarding the performance of participants' aircraft is competition sensitive and directs that the report shall not disclose their identities and shall, where appropriate, protect their intellectual property. The committee will work with the Army to ensure that such information is adequately protected. The committee further understands that Kiowa Warrior service-life, safety, and capability upgrades are necessary under any potential replacement scenario in order to address critical near-term operational performance and safety requirements. The committee supports these Kiowa Warrior modification efforts to ensure that the Army's current light armed scout helicopter, that has been proven in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, is ready and available for the 10-20 years it may take to field a replacement should an alternative prove feasible and affordable. Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund Section 8105 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 113-6) established the Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund, and appropriated more than $2.4 billion to the Fund. The Fund was intended to prevent the premature retirement of seven cruisers and two dock landing ships during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. This reflected a concern with the proposed retirement plan that the plan: (1) was disconnected from the defense strategy; (2) created future unaffordable shipbuilding requirements; and (3) would exacerbate force structure shortfalls that negatively impact the Department's ability to meet combatant commander (COCOM) requirements. The Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for fiscal year 2014, date May 10, 2013, proposes to retire these cruisers and amphibious ships during fiscal year 2015, resulting in a fleet of 270 ships, the smallest fleet since 1917. The Navy is taking this action despite the fact that keeping these vessels operating until the end of 2014 will cost, according to the Navy, $931.1 million. The committee believes that the Navy should use the remaining resources in the Fund to sustain all of these ships. Available funds would permit the Navy to operate the ships during most of the period future-years defense program and would permit the Navy and Congress to continue evaluating options for modernizing and retaining these vessels until the end of their expected service lives. Small diameter bomb The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) program fields a 250-pound bomb that provides low-cost, precision strike capability and is designed to increase weapon's loads of fighters, bombers, and unmanned aerial systems. The first version of SDB, SDB-I, is an all-weather munition for which the requirements are defeating stationary targets. SDB-1 uses global positioning system (GPS) and inertial navigation system (INS) data to achieve the required precision. This munition achieved initial operating capability in late 2006. The second version of SDB, SDB-II, would add a tri-mode seeker (radar, infrared, and semi-active laser) to the INS and GPS guidance of the original SDB-I. These sensors are intended to provide automatic target recognition features for striking mobile targets, such as tanks, vehicles, and mobile command posts. The Air Force plans to start low rate initial production of SDB-II in 2014. Earlier this year, SDB-II flight test program was temporarily suspended due to a flight test failure, but has since resumed. Any further delays could affect the timing of Milestone C, currently scheduled for August 2013, and could cause a delay in having required assets available to outfit an F-15E squadron in late 2016. The committee is aware that there is a possible modification to the SDB-I that would add a semi-active laser (SAL) sensor. This might provide some, but not all, of the potential SDB-II capability against mobile targets. The Air Force may want to consider this or other options if there were additional flight testing difficulties that would cast doubt on the success of the SDB-II program. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to brief the congressional defense committees on the status of the entire SDB program no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act. The briefing should include current status of SDB-II test program, potential gaps in capabilities if SDB-II testing were to be delayed, examination of the mix of SDB-1 and SDB-II weapon capabilities and costs, and recommended way ahead for SDB procurement. UH-1N replacement strategy The committee is aware that the Air Force has a long- standing need to replace its aging UH-1N helicopter fleet. The current UH-1N fleet provides the Air Force with a capability to provide security for Global Strike Command operations and to ensure continuity of government and continuity of operations in the National Capital Region. The committee acknowledges that the Air Force has had to make difficult decisions on a replacement utility helicopter, but believes that the Air Force should articulate a strategy for modernizing the capability provided by these helicopters. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the congressional defense committees a report, not later than February 1, 2014, that assesses and categorizes the Air Force's utility helicopter capabilities to meet the full range of nuclear security and continuity of government requirements and describes the Air Force's strategy towards meeting such requirements. UH-72 light utility helicopter The budget request included $96.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for the procurement of 10 UH-72 light utility helicopters. According to the Army this is the final year of UH-72 purchases, truncating the total program buy at 315 aircraft instead of the originally planned 346. The committee notes that even though this ends production short of the original plan, the final buy fully meets the documented UH- 72 requirements of the Army National Guard. The committee is concerned that the Army's decision may have an impact on the UH-72 industrial base that increases risks over time for the support of its fielded fleet of 315 aircraft. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to provide the congressional defense committees with an assessment of the impact of production termination on the UH-72 industrial base and support for the fielded fleet. The Secretary's assessment should address, but not be limited to, the potential impacts on the parts supply chain including mission modules, the availability of maintenance services, and how the replacement of aircraft will be managed in the event of any future losses. The Secretary shall submit this assessment not later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Uninterruptable power supply The committee is aware of a funding shortfall associated with procurement of the Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) required for the new United States Strategic Command Replacement Facility. The committee also notes the UPS must be delivered no later than July 2014 to avoid significant construction delays and/or contract penalties. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 2013, identifying specific actions the Air Force is taking to ensure the UPS is delivered by the construction need date. Use of commercially available systems to support certain Navy requirements The Navy faces growing anti-access and area denial threats around the world, specifically including Iranian small boat swarm threats in the Arabian Gulf and in the Strait of Hormuz. In addition to this reality of increasing threats, the Navy faces tightening resources from implementation of the Budget Control Act (Public Law 112-25). The committee believes that the Navy, whenever possible, should seek to make maximum use of commercially available systems to fill capability gaps in the most affordable manner. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget request, including a classified annex as necessary, that would identify: (1) any gaps in Department of the Navy's capability to deal with anti-access and area denial threats; (2) if there are gaps, whether those gaps are covered by other Department of Defense forces or systems; (3) if there are gaps, to what extent there may be commercially available systems to fill the capability gaps; (4) whether fielding commercially available systems could potentially avoid lengthy and costly research and development programs; and (5) whether commercially available systems are free from cyber threats. War readiness engine shortfall The committee understands that the Air Force faces a shortfall of useable engines for the F-15 and F-16 fleets as compared to the war readiness engine objective. Given that the Air Force will continue to rely on the F-15 and F-16 well into the foreseeable future, maintaining the readiness of these fleets is imperative. The committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to include sufficient resources in future budgets for engines to avoid degrading readiness. 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 Conventional Prompt Global Strike program (sec. 211) The committee is supportive of the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) program and realizes that efforts in developing intermediate- and long-range hypersonic boost-glide systems have the potential to provide significant military capability. However, the committee is concerned that the strategic policy issues regarding submarine-launched systems have not been considered adequately. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) from executing any funds in PE 64165D8Z related to the development of a submarine-launched CPGS capability until 60 days after the Department delivers to the congressional defense committees a report that addresses the policy considerations concerning the ambiguity problems regarding the launch of CPGS missiles from submarine platforms. The CPGS program is currently an event-driven technology development and demonstration program, and the committee recognizes that in the current budget environment, DOD needs to take a system-of-systems approach to develop an integrated strategic plan that addresses the cost-benefit analyses of various launch approaches. The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) shall conduct a study, to include the costs and benefits of maritime and ground surface versus sub- surface launched CPGS systems. While the committee recognizes that significant technical development remains, it is not too early to begin considering the fiscal implications of the various launch mechanisms, including integration costs. The committee notes that Section 1071 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required a report on the ability of national test and evaluation capabilities to support the maturation of hypersonic technologies for future defense systems development. This earlier report effort is synergistic with the CAPE report. The CAPE report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology to report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the enactment of this Act on whether the CPGS activity should be managed under the Joint Technology Office on Hypersonics under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The committee feels that the synergies and efficiencies under this office could benefit the broader boost- glide and air-breathing hypersonics community. Modification of requirements on biennial strategic plan for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec. 212) The committee recommends a provision that would make some modifications to the biennial strategic plan requirement for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The modifications seek to make the plan more useful and assign responsibility to the Director of DARPA versus the Secretary of Defense. Extension of authority for program to award prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 213) The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would extend through September 30, 2017, the authority for the Secretary of Defense to carry out programs to award cash prizes in recognition of outstanding achievements in scientific and technical research and development. Five-year extension of pilot program to include technology protection features during research and development of certain defense systems (sec. 214) The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would extend for an additional 5 years, to October 1, 2020, the pilot program addressing Defense Exportability Features to be incorporated in export versions of major defense equipment. Extension of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories for research and development of technologies for military missions (sec. 215) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the authority of section 219(c) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law (110-417) until September 30, 2020. Section 219 allows the Department of Defense laboratories to use up to 3 percent of their funds for internal competitive research and development, workforce development, and limited laboratory revitalization activities. Sustainment or replacement of Blue Devil Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance System (sec. 216) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to procure the currently deployed Blue Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft or to develop a plan to replace that system with a comparable or improved one. The leases for the existing Blue Devil system aircraft, deployed in Afghanistan, will expire in the second quarter of fiscal year 2014. These manned aircraft are equipped with wide- area motion-imagery (WAMI) cameras, which work in conjunction with a ground-based signals intelligence (SIGINT) network that detects and locates specific targets with high precision. These SIGINT identifications and locations are used to cue analysts to spot and track the targets through the motion imagery sensor. Assessments of the performance of this system in theater have been outstanding, and an operations research study conducted by the Air Force demonstrated that a system based on a longer-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that carries both the imagery and SIGINT capabilities would be even more flexible and effective. U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), through the Air Force Big Safari program office, has already fielded a so- called near vertical direction finding (NVDF) SIGINT sensor on an airborne platform that replicates the capabilities of the ground-based SIGINT system used in Blue Devil. SOCOM is procuring a podded version of this sensor for deployment on Reaper UAVs. SOCOM has also already paired this NVDF system with a motion imagery camera, but that camera is a traditional full-motion video (FMV) camera with a narrow field of view rather than a WAMI system. NVDF systems can simultaneously detect and locate a very large number of emitters in its field of view. An FMV camera, however, can only track one target at a time because of its limited area coverage. A WAMI camera, in contrast, could track many targets simultaneously, which matches the capability of NVDF sensors. SOCOM is in discussions with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on partnering to transition DARPA's Wide Area Network Detection (WAND) technology, which combines NVDF and WAMI and provides technology to track targets automatically. The Air Force has already fielded the DARPA-developed WAMI system on the Reaper UAV called Gorgon Stare Increment 2, and has funded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory to develop NVDF technology under the name Blue Moon. The Gorgon Stare pods are very large and weigh 1,500 pounds. However, the Blue Moon system has not been integrated with Gorgon Stare or the Reaper and has performance limitations compared to the SOCOM-fielded NVDF system. The provision the committee recommends would require the Department of Defense to integrate and rationalize all these disparate activities to create an important capability for a recognized requirement. The Air Force must work with SOCOM and DARPA to realize these objectives. The Air Force can procure more of the mature NVDF capability it has fielded for SOCOM, and integrate that with its fielded Gorgon Stare WAMI systems on the Reaper. DARPA's WAND technology can enhance the performance of this integrated capability. Likewise, the Blue Moon NVDF technology has important capabilities that are lacking in the SOCOM- fielded NVDF system that should be incorporated as soon as possible. This technology needs to be transitioned to industry broadly for future competitions to improve NVDF performance. For the future, NVDF technology must be improved to deal with encryption-related target identification limitations and next- generation signal types. Likewise, WAMI systems need to be dramatically reduced in size, weight, and power requirements; industry has already developed multiple competitive solutions. To implement this direction, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to the budget request of $37.8 million in PE 35206F for Airborne Reconnaissance Systems. This increase is partially offset by a reduction of $2.5 million to the request, which reflects the difference between the amount reflected in the budget tables provided to Congress and the amount contained in the Military Intelligence Program justification volume. Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of Congress concerning homeland ballistic missile defense, and require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a range of potential future options for enhancing homeland ballistic missile defense, including the possible deployment of a missile defense interceptor site on the East Coast, and the possible deployment of an additional sensor on the East Coast. The provision would require the Secretary to submit a report on the evaluation, including such findings, conclusions, and recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate, for potential future options for homeland ballistic missile defense. The United States currently has an operational homeland ballistic missile defense system, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, with 30 Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) deployed in Alaska and California. In appearances before the committee during 2013, numerous senior military leaders testified that they are confident in the ability of the current GMD system to protect the entire United States, including the East Coast, from limited ballistic missile attacks from North Korea and Iran. The committee agrees with the Department of Defense that this homeland missile defense capability can and should be improved. The committee notes that, on March 15, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a series of steps planned to enhance homeland ballistic missile defense, as part of the homeland missile defense hedge strategy, to stay ahead of the evolving long-range missile threat from North Korea and Iran. These steps include: the deployment of an additional 14 GBIs at Fort Greely, Alaska--a nearly 50 percent increase--by 2017; the deployment of a second AN/TPY-2 missile defense radar in Japan; the evaluation of potential sites in the United States for possible future deployment of a missile defense interceptor site; and the establishment of a new common kill vehicle technology development program. One element of the decision announced by Secretary Hagel was the cancelation of the previous plan to develop the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIB interceptor missile for Phase 4 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense. Twenty-four SM-3 IIB missiles had originally been intended for deployment at an Aegis Ashore interceptor site in Poland in 2020, to augment the GMD system in defending the United States from possible future long-range Iranian missiles. However, congressional funding reductions and technical challenges had delayed the program beyond 2022, with significant uncertainties about its ability to accomplish the intended mission. Secretary Hagel made clear that the U.S. commitment to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) missile defense ``remains ironclad,'' including the planned Aegis Ashore interceptor site deployments in Romania in 2015 and Poland in 2018. According to Secretary Hagel, these deployments ``will still be able to provide coverage of all European NATO territory as planned by 2018.'' As Secretary Hagel and other Department of Defense officials explained, deploying the additional 14 GBIs in Alaska would provide additional homeland defense at least 5 years sooner against both North Korea and Iran, and at far less cost than the SM-3 IIB program. Funds from the canceled SM-3 IIB program were redirected for the deployment of the additional 14 GBIs and for the new common kill vehicle technology development program. They also explained that, before the 14 additional GBIs are deployed, the GMD system would have to be tested and demonstrated successfully in an intercept test, to provide confidence that the system would work as intended. This ``fly before you buy'' commitment is needed to demonstrate the successful correction of the problem that caused a GMD flight test failure in December 2010 with the Capability Enhancement-II (CE-II) kill vehicle. The Government Accountability Office estimates that correcting this problem and demonstrating its success in flight tests will cost more than $1.2 billion and has caused program delays of several years. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has halted all assembly, integration, manufacture, and refurbishment of GBIs with CE-II kill vehicles until the CE-II correction is successfully demonstrated in flight testing, including an intercept flight test planned for early 2014. The committee commends MDA for this ``fly before you buy'' approach, and notes that further procurement of GBIs, planned to replace the 14 GBIs that will be deployed by 2017, would also depend upon successful demonstration that the CE-II kill vehicle will work as intended. The committee expects the GBI industry team to show the same level of commitment to demonstrating success in correcting the CE-II problems. In testimony before the committee, Vice Admiral James Syring, the Director of MDA, explained that improvements to the GMD ``kill chain,'' particularly in sensors, discrimination, and kill assessment, would provide an ``absolutely needed benefit'' that would be ``equally important to interceptors'' in staying ahead of the evolving threat from North Korea and Iran. The committee strongly supports Admiral Syring's priority to improving the overall performance and effectiveness of the GMD system, and notes that these enhancements are intended to be cost-effective, timely, and affordable. Consequently, the committee directs the Director of MDA to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 2014, explaining the specific GMD kill chain enhancements that would be most beneficial to overall GMD effectiveness, including any improvements in GBI reliability and performance, and how and when MDA proposes to achieve those enhancements. Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of Congress concerning the importance of regional ballistic missile defense and would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report on the status and progress of efforts to enhance regional ballistic missile defense capabilities. The committee notes that regional ballistic missile defenses provide a critical force protection capability for forward deployed U.S. forces, as well as for allies and partners, against missile threats from countries such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea's public threats in the spring of 2013 to use ballistic missiles against South Korea, Japan, and Guam served as a stark reminder of the importance of regional missile defenses and the need to expand and improve U.S. regional missile defense capabilities. Regional missile defenses are a high priority for geographic combatant commanders. Lieutenant General Richard P. Formica, USA, Commander of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, and Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, under U.S. Strategic Command, testified in May 2013 that the Global Ballistic Missile Defense Assessment for 2012 concluded that the operational risk for regional missile defenses is higher than the homeland missile defense risk. The Department of Defense is pursuing increased regional missile defense capabilities, such as the European Phased Adaptive Approach and similar approaches tailored to other regions, including cooperation with allies and partners. The committee supports the continued development, testing, and deployment of regional missile defense capabilities such as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system and its associated Standard Missile-3 interceptors, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems. The committee notes that missile defense tests over the last year have demonstrated increasing capability for these systems, including the capability to launch on remote sensor data. Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of Congress that it is in the national security interest of the United States to pursue efforts at missile defense cooperation with Russia that would enhance the security of the United States, its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, and Russia, particularly against missile threats from Iran. The provision states that such cooperation should not ``in any way limit United States'' or NATO's missile defense capabilities,'' and that the United States should not provide Russia with sensitive information that would compromise United States national security, including hit-to-kill technology and interceptor telemetry. It also states that such cooperation should be pursued in a manner that ensures that classified U.S. information is appropriately safeguarded and protected from unauthorized disclosure. In testimony to the committee on May 9, 2013, Madelyn Creedon, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, stated that the United States ``continues to seek cooperation with Russia on missile defense, both bilaterally and with our allies, through the NATO-Russia Council. We are pursuing this cooperation because it would be in the security interest of all parties and could strengthen the defensive capabilities of both NATO and Russia.'' She also testified that the ``United States has pursued missile defense cooperation with Russia with the clear understanding that we will not accept constraints on our missile defense systems, we will implement the EPAA [European Phased Adaptive Approach], and Russia will not have command and control over NATO ballistic missile defense efforts.'' The committee notes that the NATO Chicago Summit statement of May 20, 2012, reiterates NATO's commitment to missile defense cooperation with Russia, ``such as the recent [NATO- Russia Council] Theatre Missile Defense Exercise,'' in order to ``enhance European security.'' The statement also says, ``we look forward to establishing the proposed joint NATO-Russia Missile Data Fusion Centre and the joint Planning Operations Centre to cooperate on missile defense. We propose to develop a transparency regime based upon a regular exchange of information about current respective missile defense capabilities of NATO and Russia.'' Additional missile defense radar for the protection of the United States homeland (sec. 234) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Missile Defense Agency to deploy an X-band radar, or comparable sensor, at a location optimized to support the defense of the United States homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats. The provision would also authorize $30.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency for the initial costs toward deployment of the radar. The committee notes that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency and the Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense have indicated that their highest future investment priority for homeland ballistic missile defense is the enhancement of sensor capabilities that will improve threat discrimination and kill assessment, and thus permit more effective defense. This provision would address that future investment priority. The committee understands that the Missile Defense Agency has expressed the importance of enhanced sensor capabilities relative to both North Korea and Iran. The committee believes that the additional sensor capability required by this provision should optimize the defense of the entire United States homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats from both North Korea and Iran. Evaluation of options for future ballistic missile defense sensor architectures (sec. 235) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct an evaluation of options and alternatives for future ballistic missile defense sensor architectures in order to enhance U.S. ballistic missile defense capabilities in a cost-effective, operationally effective, timely, and affordable manner. The provision would also require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress with the results of the evaluation, including such findings, conclusions, and recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate. The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) terminated the program to develop the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) because it concluded the acquisition risk and the cost were too high and that it would not be affordable. PTSS was intended to provide persistent space-based tracking of regional and long-range ballistic missiles from nations such as North Korea and Iran, particularly to permit enhanced defense against large regional missile raids. The committee notes that the military still has a need for improved tracking and targeting of ballistic missiles. It is not yet clear how DOD intends to meet the need for enhanced sensor coverage in the absence of PTSS. The committee expects DOD to take advantage of the lessons learned from PTSS in its evaluation of options for future sensor architectures. In testimony before this committee, a number of witnesses, including Vice Admiral James Syring, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, testified that enhancing our missile defense sensor system is a key near-term priority for improving our homeland and regional missile defense capability, particularly for improving discrimination and kill assessment of missile threats. Prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS program (sec. 236) The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2014 Department of Defense funds for the Medium Extended Air Defense System. Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters Annual Comptroller General of the United States report on the acquisition program for the VXX Presidential Helicopter (sec. 251) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Comptroller General to produce an annual report on the VXX presidential helicopter program until the program enters full rate production or is cancelled, whichever comes first. Budget Items Army Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project The budget request included $23.3 million across a number of program elements for the development of a new blast test manikin that would respond in a biofidelic manner when exposed to under-body blast conditions experienced by mounted soldiers. The committee notes that the development of such a test manikin would significantly improve the Department's ability to measure the projected injuries that could be caused by various blast events caused by improvised explosive devices. Such information would lead to improved survivability of ground combat vehicles. Due to various programmatic issues, the program is facing a budget shortfall that would lead to a schedule slip that would adversely impact the timeliness of critical design data for ground combat vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE 62618A for the Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project. Long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle The budget request included $29.0 million in PE 35205A for contract close-out for the now-terminated long endurance multi- intelligence vehicle. The committee notes that the amount required for termination costs has not been determined and should be covered by prior years' appropriations. The committee recommends no funding for this activity in fiscal year 2014. General Fund Enterprise Business Systems The budget request included $17.3 million in PE 64882A for General Fund Enterprise Business Systems (GFEBS). The committee notes that funds for the development of a classified module for GFEBS were provided in a prior year. The committee recommends a decrease of $17.1 million in PE 64882A for GFEBS. Internet mapping The budget request included $33.9 million in PE 65803A for Technical Information Activities. Cyberspace is a vast new operational domain that has extensive and varied topography. As the committee emphasized in its report (S. Rept. 112-173) accompanying S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), charting this new terrain is as fundamental to operations in cyberspace as maps of physical terrain have always been to military campaigns. Despite the obvious need, attempts to map the Internet so far have been very modest. The Internet has appeared to be too complex, too large in scale, and experiencing changes too rapidly. However, the committee is persuaded that commercial technology and data sources are now available to capture the necessary detail at the required speed and volume. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence understands the need for a dynamic, comprehensive Internet mapping capability, and is working with the Air Force Research Laboratory to fund pilot projects to demonstrate the potential of commercial technology and data sources. The Army's Geospatial Center under the Engineer Research and Development Center has also initiated research and development to map this 21st century terrain. The committee recommends authorization of an increase of $5.0 million in PE 65803A for the Army Geospatial Enterprise project to enhance and expand its Internet mapping research. Navy Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development The budget request included $136.0 million in PE 64786N for developing an offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) weapon. This follows on an enacted funding level of $86.8 million in fiscal year 2013. The Navy hopes to use these funds to develop an OASuW weapon system or systems solution that can be launched from the air or from surface vessels against hostile surface targets. These efforts were largely in response to an urgent operational need statement (UONS) seeking immediate capability. 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. The Navy also had planned to issue a contract for $31.5 million for an accelerated development effort to field an interim OASuW capability in April 2013. That contract effort has since been suspended due to changing priorities within the Navy, and some disagreement about the validity of the UONS that initiated the effort. The budget exhibits indicate that the funds instead would be used to mature technologies applicable to an OASuW program. In fiscal year 2014, the Navy planned to spend the year preparing for a milestone A acquisition decision that would not occur until at least the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. In fiscal year 2015, the Navy budget exhibits indicate that the Navy will be conducting competitive prototyping if required under new technology development contracts awarded in fiscal year 2015. It is clear to the committee that the Navy intends to conduct no such competitive prototyping, but will instead try to transition a developmental effort from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) into a program of record. The committee fails to see the need to invest so much in a program for which the urgency of the UONS is now in doubt, and certainly not to down select prematurely to a single program responding to a near-term requirement that would not deliver capability in the near term. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in PE 64786N. The committee believes it would be prudent to continue government support activities anticipating a successful milestone A graduation in fiscal year 2015, but that the Navy should be able to do this with $36.0 million in fiscal year 2014, an increase of roughly 39 percent above the fiscal year 2013 effort that was not related to the cancelled accelerated development program. The committee further expects the Navy to present a plan that: (1) pursues a more competitive approach; and (2) yields a program proceeding to a technology readiness level 6 before deciding on a particular technical solution. LHA-8 design effort The budget request included $155.3 million in PE 64567N for various ship design and research and development efforts, including $30.8 million for the next amphibious assault ship, LHA-8. Within the $30.8 million, $14.5 million is for LHA-8 ship design. Navy LHA-8 program development and design activities have involved two shipyards, among other contractors. The Navy intends to begin procurement funding for LHA-8 in fiscal year 2015. Repeated Navy shipbuilding programs have shown that failing to complete a ship's design before starting construction inevitably leads to cost growth and schedule delays. The committee believes that the Navy should invest more than it is currently planning to invest in maturing the design of LHA-8 before starting construction activities. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 64567N for maturing the LHA-8 design. Marine personnel carrier The budget request included $20.9 million in PE 26623M for the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The committee notes that the Marine Corps has deferred acquisition of the MPC until after it meets more urgent requirements for a new amphibious combat vehicle and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The committee further notes that there are prior-year funds available to continue any MPC-related requirements analysis and determination or technology studies until a decision is made regarding the sequencing and availability of resources for this capability. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.9 million in PE 26623M for the MPC. Air Force Operationally Responsive Space The fiscal year 2014 budget requested no funding for the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) rejected the proposed termination of the ORS Office and required its location be separate and distinct from the headquarters of the Air Force Space and Missile System Center while reporting to the Director of the Center. Congress awaits the reports required from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) on how the Department of Defense (DOD) will implement the legislation and move ORS concepts into space acquisition programs. Most if not all of the concepts championed by the ORS office such as low cost launch, disaggregation, and common bus structures are now being embraced by DOD in times of fiscal constraint. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE 64857F to continue the operations of the ORS office and work on a low cost weather satellite as was briefed to the congressional defense committees. Tactical data networks enterprise The budget request for tactical data networks enterprise included $51.5 million in PE 64281F, including $21.4 million for airborne networking enterprise. Only $6.2 million of the amount for airborne networking enterprise is explained anywhere in the unclassified or classified budget documentation. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $15.2 million in PE 64281F. Tactical exploitation of national capabilities The budget request included $89.8 million in PE 27247F for the tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP) program. Included within this amount is $48.0 million to develop a communications pod for F-15 fighters to enable 5th generation and 4th generation fighters to communicate with one another. The total also includes $28.8 million to procure advanced sensors and components for installation on these communications pods. The committee appreciates the fact that elements of the Air Force are finally responding to the serious and embarrassing problem that the 5th generation fighters (the F-22 and the F- 35) cannot communicate with one another or with the 4th generation fighters. However, there are now multiple initiatives underway in the Air Force that are not coordinated or well-planned. In addition, there is no justification for pursuing fighter data link developments in the TENCAP program, especially since this initiative will not address the problem of relaying national-level intelligence information to the fighters or relaying tactical information from the fighters to national-level systems. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $76.8 million. Joint surveillance/target attack radar system The budget request included $57.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the E-8 modifications program and $13.2 million in PE 27581F within Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar Systems (JSTARS). The level of the RDT&E request reflects a reduction of $11.0 million from the enacted level of $24.2 million in fiscal year 2013, largely due to the planned retirement of the T-3 aircraft that has been a dedicated testing and development platform for the JSTARS program. Although there have certainly been reductions in current development activities, that does not mean that all development and integration activities are over. Losing the dedicated testing platform is also troublesome because the Air Force has decided it cannot afford to modernize the JSTARS capability by fielding a new platform. That means that the Air Force will be relying on the 16 operational JSTARS aircraft and 11 Global Hawk Block 40 aircraft to provide all of the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and ground moving target indicator (GMTI) support for ground force operations for the foreseeable future. Since the peacetime demand for these SAR and GMTI services is so high, retiring the T-3 aircraft will mean that operational aircraft would have to be diverted from other important tasks to support testing. Therefore, to avoid this situation, the committee recommends an increase of $9.9 million in PE 27581F for RDT&E to sustain T-3 operations during fiscal year 2014. Air Force Applications Software Assurance Center of Excellence The budget request included $90.2 million in PE 33140F for the Information Systems Security Program. The committee has stressed for several years that the cybersecurity problem is largely due to vulnerabilities in the software controlling computing devices. The Air Force established the Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence (ASACOE) in 2007 in response to a serious breach that illuminated the software vulnerability problem in the Air Force and across the whole Department of Defense (DOD). Despite the seriousness of the problem, however, the Air Force has failed to provide the ASACOE with adequate funding. While funding for the ASACOE's government personnel is included in annual budget requests, funds for contractor support, bulk licenses for code analysis tools, and other expenses necessary to carry out the Center's mission are not budgeted, forcing the Center to live precariously on periodic fund transfers from other sources. Nonetheless, despite this handicap, the ASACOE has earned a reputation for effectiveness and lasting impacts in improving the security of many applications and acquisition programs, in the Air Force and across DOD. In a report to Congress in July 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force stated that ``the capabilities demonstrated by ASACOE are integral to the technical tool box'' that DOD will use to implement its Supply Chain Risk Management strategy. A report to Congress in October 2011 from the Secretary of Defense on a strategy for assuring the security of DOD software and software-based applications listed the ASACOE and the National Security Agency's Center for Assured Software as organizations that would be leveraged to implement DOD's Trusted Systems and Networks strategy. The report further stated that an internal DOD study concluded that software vulnerability detection should be ``organized centrally'' to assure ``a consistent response, coherent direction, and comprehensive coverage'' at least until software assurance expertise and resources are developed and diffused across the Department. The committee believes that the ASACOE could significantly contribute to the implementation of section 933 of the National Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The mission of ASACOE is to educate, train, equip, and assist program management offices to achieve security in software developments and acquisitions. It provides these services through its expertise in software assurance requirements, design, standards, best practices, technology and tools for code analysis, penetration testing, training, and remediation. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE 33140F to enable the ASACOE to fulfill this mission. These funds will allow ASACOE to exercise the option year on its current contract. The committee urges the Air Force to establish a regular funding line in future budget requests for contractor support and bulk license procurement, and a plan for assessment and remediation of critical software systems. Defense-wide National Defense Education Program The budget request included $84.3 million in PE 61120D8Z for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP) that funds three activities related to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education: (1) Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) scholarship program; (2) National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship (NSSEFF); and (3) pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (PK-12) STEM. In the fiscal year 2014 President's budget request, the administration consolidated most STEM programs across the government, including the Department of Defense (DOD), to the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution. While the consolidation was well- intended to eliminate unnecessary duplication of activities in this area across hundreds of programs, little analytical effort appeared to be expended to determine which exact programs should be transferred. In the case of DOD, the PK-12 program was terminated with much of the funding transferred to NSSEFF. Given that DOD has a vested interest in building a foundation with PK-12 activities to motivate and encourage children to pursue STEM careers for national security purposes, the committee directs that $10.0 million in this PE be transferred from NSSEFF back to PK-12 activities that have participation by DOD laboratories and directly benefit the children of DOD families. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on DOD execution of the NDEP no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The report will include an overall assessment of the outcomes of the NDEP program; a historic and projected examination of SMART, NSSEFF, and PK-12 STEM funding levels; a comparison of NDEP to other federal government funded STEM education programs; and any recommendations on improving program execution. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory The budget request included $46.9 million in PE 62234D8Z for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory, an increase of $10.0 million from the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The committee believes the increase is unjustified and recommends a decrease of $5.0 million. Applied research for the advancement of science and technology priorities The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 62251D8Z for applied research for the advancement of science and technology (S&T) priorities. This program element was newly established to fund key research opportunities identified by the S&T Priority Steering Councils. The committee believes that this funding is more appropriate in the services' S&T budgets and recommends a decrease of $15.0 million. Automated software code analysis tool development The budget request included $18.9 million in PE 62668D8Z for Cyber Security Research, and $19.7 million in PE 63668D8Z for Cyber Security Advanced Research. The Assuring Effective Missions projects in these two program elements duplicate research that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is conducting under the Plan X program. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease to the request of $2.0 million and $3.0 million in PE 62668D8Z and PE 63668D8Z, respectively. In two National Defense Authorization Acts, the committee included provisions requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to take concrete steps to improve the security of the software that is the target of the cyber attacks that DOD suffers relentlessly. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), Congress established mandatory requirements for the use of automated code analysis tools in the development and testing of software for DOD systems. The committee's understanding was that DOD officials agreed that the use of such tools is critically important to cybersecurity. The most capable tools currently available are built by commercial companies with little to no government investment. These tools have progressed in performance, but the committee believes that DOD should be investing in improved tools to achieve fewer false positives and negatives in identifying defects and vulnerabilities. The committee also believes that DOD should be investing in so-called smart fuzzing tools to identify exploitable vulnerabilities in software. Such tools are used routinely and very effectively in the intelligence community, but not so far by the DOD acquisition community. The committee recommends authorization of $2.0 million and $3.0 million in PE 62668D8Z and PE 63668D8Z, respectively, to develop automated code analysis tools, including fuzzing tools. The committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to include funds for this purpose in future budget requests. Counter terrorism, counter-insurgency, and the exploitation of human terrain in conflict The budget request terminated the Human Social Culture Behavior (HSCB) program. The fiscal year 2013 budget request had $6.8 million in PE 62670D8Z (HSCB Modeling Applied Research), $8.2 million in PE 63670D8Z (HSCB Advanced Development), and $5.1 million in PE 64670D8Z (HSCB Modeling Research and Engineering). The committee notes that the list of priority missions of the U.S. armed forces released in the fiscal year 2014 budget request had counter terrorism and irregular warfare as the first mission. During the course of the last 12 years of conflicts, one key lesson that has emerged is the need for the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a rigorous comprehensive understanding of the human terrain in which it is operating. A deep understanding of the cultural, social, religious, and ethnic factors on the ground are vital to successful operations. While the Department claims that each of the services are increasing their investments in these areas, eliminating the need for defense-wide funding, the committee has not seen any evidence to suggest that this is the case. In 2008, DOD created the HSCB program to rapidly transition basic research to tools for military personnel to increase intelligence collection and integration, and provide our warfighters better situational awareness and capabilities on the battlefield. Since its establishment, the HSCB program has developed and transitioned operational tools to U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Southern Command, the Army's Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center, and International Security Agency Forces Joint Command Headquarters in Afghanistan. HBSC fielded tools include: data ingestion, analysis and modeling capabilities; behavioral modeling capabilities; geospatial and social network analysis tools; and automated techniques to rapidly extract persons, events and sentiments. In 2009, the Defense Science Board, in its report ``Understanding Human Dynamics'', identified a number of key gaps in the DOD's knowledge of human dynamics. The HSCB program addresses a majority of these gaps to include: multi-domain, multi-speaker spoken conversation, transcription and translation; technologies for extracting knowledge from both structured and unstructured human networks; automated assessments of the human terrain with an emphasis on attitudes, influence networks, and the effects of strategic communication; gaming for virtual training and mission rehearsal; automated sentiment, intention, and deception detection; and dynamic network analysis to understand influence, attitudes, and beliefs. Given the overall importance of this area, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for each of the above program elements, for a total of $15.0 million. Furthermore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on the Department's overall investment strategy in the field of human, social, cultural, and behavior research and engineering, an assessment of the operational utility of fielded HSCB tools, and a plan for transitioning funding for this area from defense-wide activities to those funded by the services. Combating Terrorism Technology Support The budget request included $77.8 million in PE 63122D8Z for the Combating Terrorism Technical Support (CTTS) program, a modest increase from $77.1 million in fiscal year 2013. The committee supports the mission of the CTTS program to rapidly develop and transition a wide range of technologies to the joint, interagency, and international communities focused on combating terrorism. However, in the current budgetary environment, the committee observes--based upon an analysis of CTTS programs completed in fiscal year 2012 and ongoing in fiscal year 2013--that there is a significant amount of work conducted by this program that is more suited to be funded by the Special Operations Command and its associated components, as well as by the services. Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $17.0 million to PE 63122D8Z. Ballistic missile defense technology programs The budget request included $309.2 million in PE 63175C for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for development of ballistic missile defense technology, including $229.9 million for advanced technology development, and $70.0 million for the Common Kill Vehicle technology development program, which is a new program described elsewhere in this report. The committee notes that MDA has placed a number of previous technology development programs, which had been in separate program elements, into a single technology development program element. The committee is concerned that this consolidation of all technology development projects into a single program element may degrade transparency and oversight, which would be contrary to the interests of the committee and to the MDA efforts to improve transparency and oversight. The committee also notes that advanced technology development funding for fiscal year 2014, in addition to the $70.0 million for the common kill vehicle technology development program, spikes at $230.0 million, from a level of $76.0 million in fiscal year 2013, and is planned to come down in fiscal year 2015 and beyond to a level of about $138.0 million per year. The committee observes that a 1-year spike in technology development funding will not create sustainable progress, and is likely to lead to significant program management and execution challenges, as well as starting work that would not be continued in future years. One of the previous MDA program elements that has been moved into the technology development program element in the budget request is the directed energy program within the Weapons Technology project, for which $83.5 million is requested. The committee notes that the MDA-directed energy research and development program, along with other Department of Defense-directed energy programs, do not have an adequate level of common metrics for oversight and program evaluation, as described elsewhere in this report. Furthermore, one of MDA's directed energy projects, the Diode-Pumped Alkalai Laser System (DPALS) project, does not have the same level of coordination and oversight from an array of directed energy experts as the fiber-combining laser project, which includes the involvement of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Furthermore, the committee believes that MDA continues to place too much focus on high-energy laser lethality work for future boost-phase intercept missions, years before it is known whether the technology will ever permit such applications. Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million to the DPALS project in the directed energy portion of the weapons technology component of PE 633175C for Advanced Technology, and an undistributed reduction of $25.0 million across other portions of PE 633175C for Advanced Technology as unsustainable growth. The committee also directs MDA to brief the congressional defense committees within 90 days of the enactment of this Act on a strategy for broadening the DPALS effort to encourage effective peer review, competition, and increased involvement of the high-energy laser expert community. The committee notes that the new Common Kill Vehicle Technology research and development program is planned for consistent levels of funding across the future-years defense program, which will allow for a sustained research and development effort. The committee believes this stable funding approach program will permit sustainable efforts and results. Rapid Fielding The budget request included $315.0 million in Rapid Fielding programs spread between Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations ($174.4 million in PE 63648D8Z), Emerging Capabilities Technology Development ($62.0 million in 63699D8Z), and Quick Reaction Special Projects ($78.5 million in 63826D8Z). The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense is shifting its Rapid Fielding operational model from primarily near-term gaps to a renewed look at longer-term interest areas that are more strategic in nature. In addition, the committee supports the Department's move to fund more conceptual, developmental, and operational prototyping. The committee urges the Rapid Fielding program to spearhead efforts to find innovative integrated design teams that can develop capabilities at far less cost than traditional defense contractors. The committee notes the design of the 5th Generation Aerial Target as one example where such a design and management philosophy can potentially lead to significant gains in affordability for the Department. To encourage greater quality versus quantity of its projects, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63648D8Z and $20.0 million in PE 63826D8Z from the Quick Reaction Fund and Rapid Reaction Fund. Networked Communications Capability Program The budget request included $20.0 million for the Networked Communications Capability Program, PE 63662D8Z. The committee understands the importance of the Department of Defense's needs in accelerating its wireless mobile networking capabilities through both greater leveraging of commercial capabilities, as well as pursuing solutions to defense unique requirements. However, the committee observes that there is significant investment across all the services and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in this area, and questions the value of this program at the defense-wide level. Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million and directs this activity to focus on coordinating wireless mobile networking capabilities across the services and DARPA, in coordination with the Defense Information Systems Agency and the Department's Chief Information Officer. Defense industrial capacity innovation and sustainment The budget request included $34.0 million in PE 63680D8Z for defense-wide manufacturing science and technology and $14.0 million in PE 67210D8Z for industrial base analysis and sustainment. The committee, along with other congressional defense committees, has been a strong supporter of programs that advance innovation in manufacturing and that sustain targeted sectors and capabilities of the defense industrial base. This view has also been expressed by prior studies of the Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review. In the current budgetary environment with an increased focus on affordability, investments in advancing manufacturing technologies have shown significant overall reductions in production and life cycle costs. Despite the critical importance of manufacturing technology, the Department of Defense's (DOD) overall manufacturing investment is only 0.3 percent of overall funding for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation--well short of the 1 percent goal recommended by the DSB. Last year, Congress provided an additional $30.0 million to the Industrial Base Innovation Fund (IBIF) program for advanced manufacturing technologies. Recent examples of IBIF projects include improved producibility of the electro-optical targeting system on the Joint Strike Fighter, improved transparent armor for soldier protection in ground combat vehicles, advanced high-energy batteries, and light weight cables and wires for weight reduction on aerospace systems. The new manufacturing techniques for the electro-optical targeting system have led to a return on investment in excess of a factor of 20. Given the demonstrated return on investment in innovative manufacturing technologies, the committee recommends an additional $25.0 million to continue the IBIF program in the 63680D8Z program element line. The committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to continue to make competitive, merit-based investments in manufacturing research and development that address defense industrial base shortfalls, especially those related to more urgent production requirements and diminishing defense manufacturing sources and material shortages, and a sustainable defense design team base. Other areas of emphasis encouraged are those related to the emerging fields of model-based engineering and integrated computational materials engineering, as highlighted in a recent National Research Council report, and new innovative technologies being developed through public- private partnerships such as the national Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, Connecting American Manufacturing, the National Digital Engineering and Manufacturing Consortium, and the Metal Affordability Initiative. Furthermore, the committee strongly urges DOD to institutionalize this program with adequate resources in future years and consider it as an important component of its wider manufacturing and industrial base strategy, in part, informed by its ongoing ``Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier'' analyses. CWMD Systems Section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 established a ``Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.'' No funding was requested in the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the advisory panel. The panel ends on June 1, 2014. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to PE 0303310D8Z to carry out the functions of the advisory panel under a transfer to PE 0902198D8Z. Advanced sensor applications program The budget request included $17.2 million in PE 63714D8Z for the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal year 2013 of $19.0 million. This reduction reflects a general reduction applied to a number of budget line items in an across-the-board manner. The committee believes that this reduction, while modest by some standards, will cause the program to postpone important testing and experiments. The committee believes that these efforts are too important to postpone or cancel, and therefore, recommends an increase of $2.0 million for ASAP. U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs The budget request included $95.8 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; $52.6 million for continued development of the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor missile; and $32.5 million for co-development of a short-range missile defense system called David's Sling. These systems are part of Israel's layered defenses against missiles and rockets of varying ranges, from longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria, to short-range missiles and large caliber rockets fired from Lebanese territory in the summer of 2006, to the very short- range rockets and artillery fired from Gaza. The United States is co-managing and jointly developing these systems to ensure that they are compatible and interoperable with U.S. missile defense systems. The committee recognizes that the threat to Israel from missiles and rockets of varying ranges is extremely serious and growing, particularly with the crisis in Syria, and that effective missile defenses are an essential component of Israel's security and regional stability. The committee supports efforts to enhance and accelerate these systems, in a manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of the joint Project Agreements governing the management and execution of these cooperative projects. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million in PE 63913C for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, including: $30.0 million to improve the Arrow Weapon System; $20.0 million for the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor development program; and $100.0 million for the David's Sling short-range missile defense system. The budget request also included $220.3 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, for MDA for Israel to procure additional Iron Dome batteries and missiles. This is the first year that funding for Iron Dome has been included in the budget request, and the committee commends the Department of Defense for making it part of the regular budget process. The Iron Dome system, which was developed by Israel, was used to great effect to defend against short-range rocket attacks from Gaza in 2012, and had a reported operational success rate of 85 percent. The committee recognizes that the current situation in Syria has added to the risk of rocket and missile attacks against Israel, and that Iron Dome is an important component of Israel's ability to protect its population against such attacks. Advanced Innovative Technologies The budget request included $130.0 million in PE 64250D8Z for Advanced Innovative Technologies. The committee is concerned that this significant level of funding will not be able to be executed in fiscal year 2014 and recommends a decrease of $30.0 million to this program element. Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program focus areas The Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) is a competitive, merit- based program established by section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) that is designed to fund innovative technologies, reduce acquisition or life cycle costs, address technical risks, improve the timeliness of test and evaluation outcomes, and rapidly insert technologies needed to meet critical national security needs. The committee notes that $250.0 million was appropriated for the RIP in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 113-6); however, no funds were requested in fiscal year 2014. The RIP was first authorized and funded in 2011. Over 170 programs were selected by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2011 to include: automated engine part inspection tools, compact anti-jam Global Positioning System antennas, enhanced ground vehicle protection, lightweight ground fire detection systems for combat outposts, ceramic based explosive ordnance detection tool kits, and improvements to mine roller wheel assemblies. All these programs are scheduled to be completed in November 2013. The overall response from the Services has been positive for the program, in particular, the fact that it has opened up more collaborative efforts with small businesses and non-traditional suppliers to DOD. The committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million in funding for the RIP to PE 64775D8Z focusing primarily on the following three broad areas: (1) delivering nearer-term emerging technologies to current military operations to enhance capabilities in areas such as: electronic warfare; cybersecurity tools; robotics and autonomous systems; spectrum management; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities; reducing soldier load; improving fixed, mobile, and dismounted force protection; and detecting and defeating all forms of improvised explosive devices; (2) contributing to breakthrough technologies for future military capabilities in areas such as: countering weapons of mass destruction; space systems; hypersonics; highly autonomous systems; large-scale data management and manipulation for command and control; and enhancing human performance; and (3) improving the affordability of defense operations in areas such as: advanced manufacturing; reducing the cost and footprint of energy and other logistical items; interoperability across platforms and systems; and innovative prototyping approaches for new platforms and systems. 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. To ensure the integrity of this competitive process, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on the execution of RIP. The report will include but not be limited to: an assessment of the RIP contract solicitation and award process; an assessment of RIP execution and monitoring of contracts; an overall assessment of how the RIP is meeting its goals and guidelines; and a complete list of all RIP awards since program inception to include funding organization, project, contractor, location, award amount, award date, description of project, confirmation that the contract award was competitive and merit-based, a description of what Joint Urgent Operational Needs or other critical national security need each RIP award addressed, and the current status of each RIP award. Developmental test and evaluation The budget request included $15.5 million in PE 65804D8Z for developmental test and evaluation and $44.2 million in PE 605142D8Z for systems engineering. The committee notes the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) required the Department of Defense (DOD) to rebuild its systems engineering and developmental testing organizations to ensure that design problems are understood and addressed early in the acquisition process. While DOD has taken great strides in improving its acquisition process, the committee notes that the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation--dated December 2012--provided a list of 17 major defense acquisition programs--the same number as in 2011--that had discoveries of significant problems during operational test and evaluation that should have been detected and corrected during developmental test and evaluation. Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department's defense-wide systems engineering budget request is almost three times greater than the developmental test and evaluation budget request. In fiscal year 2013, the committee recommended an increase of $5.0 million to developmental test and evaluation. The committee believes that DOD is continuing to underfund its developmental test and evaluation activities, as evidenced by the unacceptable number of problems being discovered in operational test and evaluation. To bring more parity between the systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation activities, the committee recommends a transfer of $5.0 million from PE 65142D8Z to PE 65804D8Z. Defense Technical Information Center The budget request included $56.0 million in PE 65801KA for the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), a modest increase from $55.5 million in fiscal year 2013. The committee supports the innovation of DTIC to improve information technologies that enhance collaboration and research support and data repository services. However, the committee questions the role of all the web services and site hosting activities that DTIC provides as well as whether the size of the organization is commensurate with its mission. Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million. Conflict Records Research Center The budget request included $3.2 million in PE 35186D8Z for Policy Research and Development programs. The committee notes that the Conflict Records Research Center (CRRC) was established to address the Secretary of Defense's intent to enable research into captured records with complete openness and rigid adherence to academic freedom and integrity. The mission of the CRRC is to facilitate the use of captured records to support research, both within and outside the government. The CRRC has made significant contributions in translating and facilitating the analysis of important documents in its Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda collections. However, the CRRC is not funded in fiscal year 2014 and there appears to not be any plans for a transition of the CRRC's expertise or access to the documents. Hence, the committee recommends $1.0 million to the above PE for the CRRC and directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on a plan to sustain the CRRC's capabilities. MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle The budget request included $1.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, 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 (USSOCOM) is responsible for the development and acquisition of special operations capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. The committee approved an above threshold reprogramming of funds requested by the Department of Defense in January 2013 to provide for the development, integration, and testing of additional capabilities to address identified technology gaps on USSOCOM UAVs. The committee understands that this reprogramming only partially addressed such technology gaps. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $12.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for the MQ-9 UAV. Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar The budget request included $1.2 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar (CCFLIR). Due to parts obsolescence issues with the current CCFLIR systems, U.S. Special Operations Command has requested a transfer of this funding to Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for design, development, and testing of the next-generation CCFLIR system. The committee recommends this transfer. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs The budget request included $2.87 billion for the research and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Taking into account the current fiscal environment, and given some lingering questions about the agency's ability to fully execute all its funding in a timely fashion, as well as concerns over certain programs, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million from DARPA's overall budget. The committee is pleased that DARPA has conducted an independent review of its Adaptive Vehicle Make ground vehicle manufacturing program, is refocusing the program, and is paying attention to how survivability considerations will be realistically taken into account. DARPA is pursuing a Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) X- Plane technology program to design, develop, and demonstrate improvements in speed, hover performance, cruise efficiency, and payload. While the committee notes that the program has identified challenging speed goals that are significant improvements over rotorcraft performance today, the committee believes that the target size of a vehicle in the 10,000 to 12,000 pounds class is too small to be of useful military utility. Furthermore, the committee strongly urges DARPA to anticipate more than a single performer to be selected for flight tests. Competition in this program is vital, and there should be at least two performers carried through flight testing. As one source for increased funding for this program, the committee recommends terminating the Transformer (X) Vehicle program due to questions about its military utility. The committee expresses deep concern for how the Plan-X cyber-security program was given a disproportionate reduction due to sequestration in fiscal year 2013. Given the potential for significant contributions by this program to the Department's greater cyber-security efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to PE 62303E for this program. The committee will continue to monitor this program to see how its schedule will be impacted. Items of Special Interest Army Occupant-Centric Survivability Program The committee acknowledges the report that the Army provided to the congressional defense committees earlier this year about its Occupant-Centric Platform Technology Enabled Capability Demonstration research program and supports its objectives to produce military standards that inform future ground vehicle development to ensure that vehicle designs mitigate injuries due to underbody blasts and subsequent crash/ rollover events. Noting that the program will take until the end of fiscal year 2015 to produce these standards, the committee encourages the Army to move as expeditiously on this program as possible and to leverage emerging technologies in the commercial sector, especially those related to vehicle restraints. Chemical and biological defense medical countermeasures strategy The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing an enhanced strategy for rapid and cost-effective development, approval, and manufacturing of medical countermeasures (MCM) against chemical and biological threats, both known and validated threats, and emerging threats. This strategy is part of an integrated national bio-defense MCM strategy to produce vaccines and therapeutics against such high-risk threats as Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever viruses and pandemic disease outbreaks. Given the need to deploy U.S. forces in many parts of the world with endemic diseases and potential bio- threats, and the need to ensure our military can operate successfully in a chemically or biologically contaminated environment, the Department has a number of unique MCM requirements that cannot be met outside of the Department's programs. The committee notes that this strategy is a coordinated and collaborative interagency effort, guided by updated national strategy and guidance documents, and involves particularly close cooperation between DOD, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This coordination permits each agency to perform its assigned tasks in a complementary fashion, reduce costs, and avoid duplication of effort. One key aspect of this DOD strategy is the development of an Advanced Development and Manufacturing (ADM) capability, formerly known as the Medical Countermeasures Initiative, which is intended to provide DOD an agile and flexible facility for rapid and affordable development and production of MCMs to protect military personnel, particularly prior to exposure to chemical and biological threats. This is a significant change from the traditional MCM development process, which is characterized by long development schedules, high risks, and high costs for single drugs for each validated threat. In contrast to the previous ``one-bug, one-drug'' approach, the Department is emphasizing the rapid development and FDA approval of broad-spectrum vaccines and anti-viral products that are intended to protect against a range of bio threats. The committee commends this more cost-effective approach and encourages the Department to continue with accelerated efforts to develop and seek FDA approval of broad-spectrum medical countermeasures, including anti-viral products that would provide improved capability against such threats as existing filoviruses that pose a current threat to forward-deployed U.S. military forces, and which could be weaponized by terrorist groups. The committee notes that the Department awarded a contract for the ADM facility in late 2012 and anticipates achieving full operational capability in 2015. The committee expects to be kept informed of progress with the ADM effort, including its results in meeting DOD objectives for cost reduction, flexibility, and agility in developing and producing MCMs against known and evolving threats, including emerging infectious diseases. The committee notes that section 1601 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108- 136) directed the Secretary of Defense to ``carry out a program of biomedical countermeasures, including but not limited to therapeutics and vaccines, for the protection of the Armed Forces. . .''. The committee believes the Department's enhanced MCM strategy, particularly its development of an ADM capability and its focus on cost reduction and affordability, is an important step to meet this requirement. Combat casualty care research In February 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report titled, ``Actions Needed to Help Ensure Combat Casualty Care Research Achieves Goals.'' The GAO recommended that ``the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to communicate to DOD's nonmedical research organizations the importance of coordination with the JPC-6 chair on combat casualty care issues, and require this coordination early in the research process when these organizations conduct research with implications for combat casualty care.'' Furthermore, the GAO recommended that ``the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs develop and implement a plan to assess the extent to which combat casualty care research and development fills gaps in DOD's capability to provide combat casualty care and achieves DOD's other goals for this portfolio of research.'' The committee notes that DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations and has taken positive steps to address them. The committee directs the Department to provide a comprehensive briefing to the committee, within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, on its progress in implementing GAO's recommendations and any additional actions it plans to take to achieve combat casualty care research goals. Common kill vehicle technology program On March 15, 2013, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a series of steps planned to enhance homeland ballistic missile defense, to stay ahead of the evolving long- range missile threat from North Korea and Iran. One of the steps announced is the creation of a new program proposed in the President's budget request to develop advanced and common kill vehicle technologies for the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) and future variants of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor for the Navy's Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program. The objectives of the program are to develop common technologies, subsystems, or components that could be used in either kill vehicle, and to advance the state-of-the-art kill vehicle capability, including propulsion, electronics, navigation, seeker optics, discrimination, and communications. Advances in these kill vehicle technologies could provide significant improvements in the effectiveness of the Ground- based Midcourse Defense (GMD) and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense systems, and the overall Ballistic Missile Defense System, which are high priority objectives for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the combatant commands that rely on these systems. Given that the program was first announced in mid-March, the committee understands it is still at the beginning stage of program concept development, and does not yet have a well- defined long-term plan in place. This is understandable for a new research and development program, but the committee expects MDA to provide more definition and clarity on the long-term plan for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development program. Section 225 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) requires the Director of MDA to develop a long-term plan to modify and upgrade the current GBI Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle, and the competitive development of a next-generation kill vehicle for the GBI. The provision also requires the Director to report to Congress on the plan by July 2013. The committee expects that the new Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development program will be compatible and consistent with the intent of Section 225. One key element of any future kill vehicle program will be advanced propulsion for the Divert and Attitude Control System (DACS) that steer the kill vehicle into the target warhead, including solid-fueled DACS that are currently used on all SM-3 variants. The committee notes that MDA plans to rely on the industrial base for innovation and competition for this Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development program. However, with the termination of the SM-3 IIB program, one of the two industry contractors with solid DACS expertise is at risk of ending their work and their ability to contribute to this program. With these concerns in mind, the committee directs MDA to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 2014, setting forth the long-term plan and objectives for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development program, including an explanation of how it intends to maintain a competitive industrial base to implement the program. The committee supports the efforts of MDA to develop technology for a next generation high performance, high reliability, and highly producible kill vehicle, which MDA says could be ready before the end of the decade. A next generation kill vehicle would have enhanced discrimination capabilities and the potential for volume kill capability. The committee encourages the MDA to move the program as expeditiously as possible from research and development into product development, based on demonstrated technical progress and consistent with sound acquisition practices, and to transfer this effort from the Ballistic Missile Defense Technology Development program element into a new program element dedicated to the development of a next generation kill vehicle for the Ground-Based Interceptor and future variants of the Standard Missile-3 interceptor. The committee expects MDA to fully incorporate the lessons learned from the previously terminated Multiple Kill Vehicle program to avoid the problems encountered in that program. High energy laser weapons The committee notes that in the fiscal year 2014 budget request, the Department requested $364.0 million for high energy laser research and development. One of the key challenges in comparing the performance and maturity levels of the various laser systems across the services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Missile Defense Agency, is the lack of common performance metrics and the criteria that can be used for down-selection, further development, and eventual deployment. To address this deficiency, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering shall develop a set of common high energy laser metrics that characterize the operational performance of a high energy laser to include a measurement of power deposited on a given area over a given amount of time at a given distance, dependent upon atmospheric conditions, as a function of the size, weight, and power of the complete laser weapon system, including power and thermal management sub-systems, the laser source, the beam control and optical sub-systems, and the command and control sub-systems. These metrics, as well as an evaluation according to these metrics that will be used for decisions on further development and eventual deployment of all current high energy laser systems the Department is currently developing, shall be reported to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department is pursuing multiple programs with solid state fiber lasers and strongly urges the Department to develop an integrated strategy that will lead to a rational down-selection process towards those systems that are most effective and mature in order to accelerate their testing in relevant operational environments and ultimately deployment. Lastly, the committee notes that the majority of DOD's laser directed energy programs are focused on the development and demonstration of high-average-power continuous wave lasers, which have the goal of delivering sufficient thermal energy to damage or destroy targets. Insufficient attention is being given to ultra-short-pulse very-high-peak-power lasers which can produce unique non-thermal effects on materials, components, and systems--effects which cannot be produced by deposition of thermal energy. The committee notes that other countries are exploring the applications for these non-thermal effects, and are advancing the development of ultra-short-pulse high-peak power lasers and associated technologies. The committee directs the Department, in particular DARPA, to begin considering these systems to determine what military utility they can provide. Future Ground-Based Interceptor acquisition The committee notes that on March 15, 2013, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced plans to deploy 14 additional operational Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely Alaska by 2017, and to procure 14 GBIs in the future to replace the deployed ones. The budget request, which was submitted less than one month after Secretary Hagel's announcement, indicates that the Department of Defense intends to procure the 14 replacement GBIs at a rate of 2 per year for seven years, with funding starting in fiscal year 2016 and deliveries continuing until at least 2024. The committee observes that there are a number of issues facing the Department with respect to future acquisition of GBIs stretching more than a decade into the future. These issues include: (1) the need to correct and demonstrate the problems experienced with the Capability Enhancement-II exo- atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), and to have alternative options available in case the correction is not successfully demonstrated in an intercept flight test in 2014; (2) planned development efforts for significant EKV upgrades and new capabilities and designs, some of which may be available for deployment before 2020; (3) planned GBI reliability improvements and upgrades, some of which may be available for deployment before 2020; (4) procurement of 2 interceptors per year does not appear to be the most cost-effective acquisition approach; and (5) the possibility of producing a mix of 3-stage and 2-stage GBIs as part of the 14 additional GBIs to be procured. The committee notes that, given current plans, the GBI production line will remain operational for at least the next decade, thus enabling the option of procuring additional GBIs in the future, if needed. However, it is not yet clear what the best acquisition options are for procuring the 14 additional GBIs. Given these issues, the committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, describing the issues and options under consideration for future GBI acquisition, including a cost-benefit assessment of multi-year procurement authority. The report should include any recommendations for congressional action to support future GBI acquisition. Hybrid Airships Over the last several years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has pursued a number of airship vehicles to span a range of missions from long duration Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) to heavy lift. Many of these programs have been terminated or concluded due to either budgetary issues, technical challenges, changed requirements, or declining interest. Nevertheless, in testimony before the committee, General William M. Fraser, III, USAF, the Commander of U.S. Transportation Command said, ``hybrid airships represent a transformational capability, bridging the longstanding gap between high-speed, lower-capacity airlift, and low-speed, higher-capacity sealift. Across the range of military operations, this capability can be leveraged from strategic to tactical distances... We encourage development of commercial technologies that may lead to enhanced mobility capabilities in the future.'' One class of airships--hybrid airships--has been investigated under DOD's Pelican program and the Army's Long Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle (LEMV). The Pelican airship uses a system to control its buoyancy, while the LEMV is a standard hybrid airship with fixed buoyancy. While the Pelican program recently demonstrated a limited capability of the underlying technology for controlled variable buoyancy, there are still significant advances that are needed to be made in order to develop a robust flight vehicle that would have a cargo capacity with any military utility. The committee understands that there is some degree of interest in the commercial sector for the transportation capabilities of a heavy-lift hybrid airship. If such a capability were developed in the private sector, there is the potential opportunity for DOD to leverage this capability for its needs. The committee directs U.S. Transportation Command and the Air Force Mobility Command to monitor progress in this area and report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on the status of developments in the commercial sector regarding hybrid airships that could be used to provide the capability identified by General Fraser, and to what extent the DOD could benefit from them. Implementation of Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan Recommendations The December 2012 U.S. Air Force Report to Congress titled, ``Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan'' states, ``Air Force Weather Agency products, processes, and organizations must continue to improve while using technology and training as enablers to assist Airmen to achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness. To accomplish this goal, Air Force Weather must remain at the cutting edge of science and technology. At the same time, to successfully operate in the current high-technology, yet fiscally constrained environment, it is imperative to partner with other Department of Defense (DOD), civil, research and development, and international agencies to develop, access, and transition needed capabilities to operations. Air Force Weather will focus modernization efforts on those capabilities required to collect, analyze, predict, tailor, and integrate accurate, timely, and relevant weather data for the warfighter.'' The committee is concerned that the Air Force currently lacks a comprehensive meteorological and weather analysis training program that relies on the most up to date technology. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Air Force brief this committee on its plan to implement the recommendations of its weather modernization report to include an incremental improvement strategy that ultimately creates a meteorological and weather analysis training program for the Air Force in coordination and cooperation with other DOD, civil, research and development, and international agencies. Importance of preserving and maintaining mission critical information technology services The committee supports the Air Force's ongoing efforts to acquire information technology (IT) products and services at lower costs and increased efficiencies. These efforts include standardizing configurations, maintaining strict adherence to Air Force and Department of Defense technical standards, leveraging $24.0 billion in IT buying power, and maximizing small business participation. The committee also supports additional efforts being taken by the Air Force to achieve cost-savings and improved efficiencies by instituting better business practices. However, the committee is concerned about a potential disconnect between broader IT modernization efforts and those efforts focused on the Air Force's mission critical, high consequence networks, such as those related to its nuclear and space missions. Hence, the committee directs the Air Force to take all steps required to preserve and sustain the high consequence, mission critical IT services to ensure there are no adverse mission impacts. Improved turbine engine program The committee supports research and development for the Improved Turbine Engine Program that would increase the operational capability and fuel efficiency of Army helicopters. The committee is aware that the Army has achieved a Material Development Decision and that under the current acquisition strategy will fund competitive prototyping through Milestone-B. The committee encourages the Army to take competitive prototyping as far as resources will permit to mitigate technical risk and prove out performance. For example, there may be an opportunity to continue competition into and through a preliminary flight rating test milestone, or through a flight demonstration of each competing engine. This investment in continuing competition could help control costs, reduce programmatic risk, and mitigate modeling and simulation shortfalls. Selecting the appropriate point at which to down select to a single engine contractor is a crucial step to ensure the taxpayers and Department of Defense get the best value in investment and performance. Independent assessment of Army Distributed Common Ground System analyst tool integration The budget request included $27.6 in PE 35208A for development of the Army's Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to task the National Assessment Group (NAG) to conduct the following activities with respect to the Army's DCGS: (1) Identify the software tools and capabilities in DCGS that provide the human-machine interface for manipulating DCGS, querying data stores, and displaying results. (2) Characterize the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and other technical interface specifications used by DCGS human-machine interface tools and capabilities. (3) Determine whether DCGS interfaces are adequate to support successful integration of existing DCGS human-machine interface tools and capabilities or similar tools that perform the same or similar functions. (4) Create an inventory of such tools and capabilities within DCGS and identify which of them are licensed products developed by a private corporation, were developed with government funding, or are open source products, and at what cost. (5) For each tool and capability, determine whether it was integrated into DCGS by government or private sector funding, by government or contractor personnel, and where data is available, at what cost. (6) Select a representative sample of advanced commercially licensed analyst tools that perform the same or similar functions as tools currently used in DCGS. (7) With the permission of the owners of those tools, characterize the technical interface specifications that would have to be satisfied for the tools to be successfully integrated into DCGS. (8) Compare the interface specifications necessary for successful integration of commercial tools to DCGS existing specification and identify any obstacles to the successful integration of commercially licensed analyst tools. The committee directs the NAG, in characterizing the tool integration interfaces within DCGS and commercial products, to assume that the tools would need to be able to ingest and manipulate data created or acquired locally as well as data already resident in the DCGS system. The NAG shall evaluate the DCGS Release 1, 2, and 3 versions. The committee directs the NAG to provide the results of this analysis to the Secretary of the Army and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, and the USD(AT&L) to forward the NAG assessment, together with any comments and recommendations, to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees within 210 days of the enactment of this Act. The committee directs that not more than 65 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for Army DCGS development in fiscal year 2014 may be obligated or expended prior to delivery of the required report. Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) system The Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) system is a paired aerostat system intended to provide persistent elevated sensor data needed to detect, track, and defeat airborne threats, including cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and surface moving targets, including swarming boats. Based on a recently restructured engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program, JLENS is nearing the completion of the EMD phase of the acquisition cycle, and is planned to demonstrate its potential capability and assess future options. As a joint system managed by the Army, it has demonstrated interoperability with a number of Army and Navy weapon systems. The Army plans to conduct an operational exercise with JLENS at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to demonstrate its capabilities in support of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command for their National Capital Region homeland defense mission, starting in October 2014. The committee supports the planned JLENS demonstration in this operational exercise and believes it will provide critical information for the Department of Defense to assess the ability of JLENS to support other combatant commander sensor requirements in the future. The committee 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 demonstration, identifying the data and analyses that it plans to use from the demonstration to guide future acquisition decisions for JLENS. The report shall also include a discussion of how the Department intends to support validated requirements of combatant commanders for persistent elevated surveillance of cruise missile and surface moving threats. Metrics for evaluating Commercial Solutions for Classified The budget request included $181.6 million in PE 33140G for the Information Systems Security Program at the National Security Agency (NSA). NSA's Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) program aims to shift the protection of classified information from reliance on government-engineered solutions toward publicly available commercial technologies. The program's technical approach is to layer commercial devices into a system for the protection of classified information, relying on the redundancy and mutual support of multiple commercial products to mitigate the risk of security flaws in any one layer. The committee strongly supports NSA's initiative to provide rapid and affordable security solutions for commercial products to enable the Department of Defense (DOD) to exploit advanced commercial technology. However, the committee is concerned that the program's metrics of success focus on breadth and speed of deployment and user acceptance, not actual measurements of the level of security achieved. Commercial technologies potentially offer lower cost and advanced capability, but NSA must ensure that it detects any degradation in security should it arise due to the use of CSfC architectures. Therefore, the committee directs that NSA develop a plan to collect data on deployments of CSfC solutions and products and compare their security performance to systems engineered by traditional methods. In building the plan, NSA should consider options from the full range of potential sources of data on security, such as security analyses, testing, blue- and red- team events, cyber exercises, and field performance, such as intrusion rates, speed with which intrusions are detected, and effort required for remediation. The committee further directs that the DOD Chief Information Officer review and approve the plan and transmit the plan to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees within 120 days of enactment of this Act. The committee also directs the program manager for the CSfC program to examine the problem of detecting and remediating vulnerabilities in the software that controls the power conditioning for mobile devices that could allow attackers to rapidly deplete limited power sources. In today's mobile communications world, power sources are the key limiting factor for mission success and optimization of battery performance and longevity are largely software controlled. Military Scientists and Engineers The committee has been a strong supporter of the Department of Defense's (DOD) science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and outreach programs. The DOD needs to be able to attract and retain the best and brightest scientists and engineers for both its civilian and military personnel. The committee acknowledges that there has been greater emphasis on the civilian STEM sector and that the number of military STEM officers has experienced a steeper decline than the total number of officers over the last two- plus decades. The broader question that needs to be addressed is how well DOD is managing its uniformed STEM workforce to ensure that it will keep pace with its own evolving needs and high technology developments around the world. Hence, to better understand the current situation with DOD uniformed STEM personnel, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the services, to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on the following: (1) the current and future requirements for uniformed STEM personnel, including requirements for types of degrees and scientific and technical fields; (2) how uniformed STEM personnel are used and integrated into the total force (by service), including how the balance between officer leadership and technical competence is addressed; (3) what differences, if any, exist between the data DOD collects on its civilian workforce and uniformed personnel in STEM fields to include: (a) the educational degree discipline; (b) the granting school of all baccalaureate, graduate, and professional degrees; and (c) the non-military occupation of Reserve component members; and (4) how the Defense Manpower Data Center is used for managing both civilian and military STEM personnel. Scientific and technical conferences As a result of some unfortunate recent events in other government agencies, the Office of Management and Budget released Memorandum M-12-12 last year that provided guidance to departments and agencies on government travel and conference attendance. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued further implementing guidance later in the year that established a tiered approval structure for conference oversight responsibilities. The committee understands that the implementing guidance has led to the oversight and approval of science and technology (S&T)-funded travel and conference sponsoring and attendance by very senior service and department levels that requires additional time and resources. An unintended consequence of this guidance has been a significant reduction in the DOD's participation in S&T-funded travel to major scientific facilities or experimental sites for research projects, grantee and contractor site visits, program reviews and technical evaluations, science board and advisory group meetings, international S&T engagements, standards- setting committees, scientific society-sponsored conferences, and events and competitions authorized under section 2192 of Title 10, United States Code, for educational outreach initiatives. Reductions in travel and conferences pose a special threat to science and engineering activities because of the collaborative nature of the work and the importance of extensive interchange among researchers to remain cognizant of and extend the current state of knowledge. The committee is concerned that decreased participation may be jeopardizing the ability of DOD S&T to successfully complete their S&T missions. In order to quantify the impact that these policies are having on the DOD S&T enterprise, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office to undertake a study of the impact of the above mentioned policies on the DOD S&T enterprise, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, and report to the congressional defense committees its findings no later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. Furthermore, in order to streamline approval timelines and reduce attendant delays, the committee directs the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish procedures to allow the services and agency heads to exercise more local control and decision making authority over travel and conference oversight and approval, consistent with applicable laws and regulations and the need to ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer funds. Tactical power grids The committee is aware that the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command and the Office of Naval Research are each pursuing the development of tactical power grids and advanced mobile electric power distribution systems to assist the Army and Marine Corps respectively, to meet the need for the efficient distribution of mobile electric power in a stable tactical grid environment. While the committee encourages these efforts to improve safety, reliability, reduce fuel consumption, and maximize energy efficiency, the committee urges the services to closely coordinate to avoid unnecessary duplication and to continue these efforts to determine whether these objectives can be met. Trusted microelectronics The committee recognizes the vital importance of supply chain risk management for Department of Defense (DOD) systems, especially for microelectronics components and software, in order to maintain mission assurance of its weapons systems. A key component of microelectronics manufacturing for critical DOD systems is the Trusted Foundry program as well as the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA). Given the rapid pace of microelectronics obsolescence, the committee supports the continued improvement of DMEA's capabilities as a foundry of last resort when commercial entities in the Trusted Foundry program are not able to manufacture a given component. In addition to supporting the Trusted Foundry program and DMEA, the committee urges DOD to ensure that an enterprise-wide approach to microelectronics trust is taken, to include the security of photomask design and inspection tools given their criticality in the integrated circuit manufacturing process. The committee urges DOD to continue to work with the private sector in ongoing partnership programs to reduce supply chain vulnerabilities and to ensure that technologies and products developed are transitioned to the manufacturing processes used for DOD microelectronics components. TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Logistics and Sustainment Sustainment of critical manufacturing capabilities within Army arsenals (sec. 311) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the military services and defense agencies, to review current and expected manufacturing requirements for which there is no or limited domestic commercial source and which are appropriate for manufacturing within an arsenal owned by the United States in order to support critical manufacturing capabilities. Strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 312) The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop an overarching strategy, along with an implementation plan, to integrate and synchronize at a Department-wide level, the services' prepositioning program. The strategy and implementation plan would ensure that the Department of Defense's (DOD) prepositioning programs, both ground and afloat, align with national defense strategies, new DOD priorities, and emphasize joint oversight to maximize effectiveness and efficiencies in prepositioned materiel and equipment across the DOD. The committee continues to believe in the strategic importance of the effective prepositioning of material and equipment in locations around the world, both ground and afloat, to facilitate and speed our response to crises or contingencies. Fiscal challenges require the DOD to carefully balance the investment in prepositioned materiel and equipment to achieve both national military objectives and other DOD priorities. The committee understands that the DOD is committed to reconstituting prepositioned materiel and equipment but must balance these efforts with the Department's other priorities, such as restructuring capabilities within its prepositioned materiel and equipment and changes in its overseas military presence. The committee is concerned that the DOD has not implemented an overarching strategy and joint service oversight framework for its prepositioning programs. As the DOD and the nation face fiscal constraints in the coming years, overarching strategic guidance that emphasizes joint oversight of the DOD's prepositioning program is essential to reduce any unnecessary overlap, duplication, and inefficiencies among the services and to maximize cost savings while minimizing risks. As far back as 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that each of the services and the Defense Logistics Agency were planning the future of their prepositioning programs without the benefit of an integrated DOD-wide plan or joint doctrine to coordinate their efforts. The GAO has made several recommendations over the years for the DOD to develop overarching strategic guidance and improve the joint service oversight of its prepositioning programs. While the DOD has agreed with the need to develop department-wide strategic guidance, efforts to do so have not materialized. Moreover, the committee is concerned that the DOD may be moving away from such efforts. For example, the DOD had previously stated that its Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan would provide the strategic guidance and that the Department would pursue opportunities for joint oversight as the GAO recommended. However, when the plan was approved in January 2013, it specifically excluded prepositioning. The committee believes that an increased emphasis on joint program management and oversight of prepositioned materiel and equipment would unify the DOD's prepositioning efforts in support of defense priorities, reduce unnecessary duplication, and achieve cost savings and efficiencies. Extension and modification of authority for airlift transportation at Department of Defense rates for non-Department of Defense Federal cargoes (sec. 313) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2642(a) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority to provide to other Federal agencies airlift transportation at the same rate the Department of Defense (DOD) charges its own units for similar transportation and to expand the authority to include all means of transportation, not just airlift. The Department currently uses this authority to: (1) provide transportation support to other departments and agencies to increase peacetime business; and (2) promote the improved use of airlift by filling excess capacity with paying cargo. The proposal also would expand the authority to allow the use of extra capacity on strategic transportation assets of the military, to include aircraft and vessels, for transportation provided in support of foreign military sales. During peacetime operations, utilization of aircraft and vessels to meet training and readiness requirements is typically greater than actual cargo transportation requirements. Therefore, DOD can transport extra cargo at little or no increase in operating costs, making utilization of excess capacity by other federal agencies prudent. Additionally, use of such capacity for the shipment of items for other departments or agencies complements the training needs of DOD. The provision would also extend the sunset date for this authority from October 28, 2014, until September 30, 2019. Subtitle C--Readiness Modification of authorities on prioritization of funds for equipment readiness and strategic capability (sec. 321) The committee recommends a provision that would cancel the requirement for an annual report on the Army's transition to modular force structure. The provision would also cancel the review of the Army's modularity report by the Government Accountability Office. Strategic policy for the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of operating forces used to support overseas contingency operations (sec. 322) The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a policy setting forth the programs and priorities of the Department of Defense (DOD) for the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of units and materiel used to support overseas contingency operations. The provision would direct that the policy shall take into account national security threats, the requirements of the combatant commands, the current readiness of the operating forces of the military departments, and risk associated with the strategic depth and the time necessary to reestablish required personnel, equipment, and training readiness in such operating forces. The provision would further direct that the required DOD implementation plan, and the annual updates to the initial plan for the following three years, shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The provision would also directs the Comptroller General to review the DOD implementation plan and policy and report to the congressional defense committees no later than 60 days after submission of the report or updates from the Secretary of Defense. Lastly, the provision would encourage DOD to submit a classified annex to accompany the implementation plan and policy, where appropriate. Subtitle D--Reports Strategy for improving asset visibility and in-transit visibility (sec. 331) The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to complete a comprehensive strategy and implementation plan for improving asset visibility tracking and in-transit visibility across the Department of Defense. Changes to quarterly reports on personnel and unit readiness (sec. 332) 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. The committee notes that in striking the term ``borrowed personnel'' the committee is referring to personnel assigned to a unit that may not have the rank, school completed, or specialized training to be able to carry out the responsibilities for the assigned position. Revision to requirement for annual submission of information regarding information technology capital assets (sec. 333) The committee recommends a provision that would align Department of Defense high-threshold Information Technology Capital Asset reporting with the Department's Major Automated Information Systems reporting and its Exhibit 300 reporting to the Office of Management and Budget. Modification of annual corrosion control and prevention reporting requirements (sec. 334) The committee notes that the military departments' corrosion control and prevention executives coordinate with the Department of Defense's (DOD) Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office on their respective strategic plans. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that linking the military departments' strategic goals to those of the DOD should improve corrosion control and prevention efforts. However, the committee notes that the GAO also found that the military departments varied in the extent that their strategic plans show clear linkage to the 10 goals and objectives included in the DOD corrosion prevention and mitigation strategic plan. The committee notes the Army's strategic plan showed clear linkage to all 10 of the goals and objectives. Additionally, the committee notes that the GAO found no inconsistencies with DOD Instruction 5000.67, which establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance for managing programs to prevent or mitigate corrosion. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would modify section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417; 10 U.S.C. 2228 note) to update the military departments' strategic plans with performance measures and show clear linkage to the DOD's overarching goals and objectives as described in the DOD's strategic plan for corrosion control and prevention. Subtitle E--Limitations and Extension of Authority Limitation on funding for United States Special Operations Command National Capital Region (sec. 341) The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) testified before the committee that ``USSOCOM is placing greater emphasis on its presence in the National Capital Region (NCR) to better support coordination and decision making with interagency partners. Thus, USSOCOM began to consolidate its presence in the NCR in early 2012. This is not a duplication of effort. We are focused instead on consolidating USSOCOM elements in the Washington, DC region under the leadership of the USSOCOM Vice-Commander--who resides in Washington.'' To support this effort, the budget request includes $10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the USSOCOM-NCR. The committee supports efforts by USSOCOM to better coordinate its activities with interagency and multinational partners, most of whom are physically located in the NCR. However, the committee believes that current fiscal constraints dictate that the goals of the USSOCOM-NCR be achieved in a resource and manpower neutral manner. While this is the first year USSOCOM has requested funding for the USSOCOM-NCR in its budget request, USSOCOM-NCR activities have been underway for more than a year resulting in significant expenditures for leased facilities and contract support. To date, the committee has not received sufficient detail on the implementation plan for the USSOCOM-NCR and its associated costs, particularly in future years. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the expenditure of any funds for the USSOCOM-NCR until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the congressional defense committees a report which describes, at a minimum: (1) the purpose of the USSOCOM-NCR; (2) the activities to be performed by the USSOCOM--NCR; (3) an explanation of the impact of the USSOCOM-NCR on existing activities at USSOCOM headquarters; (4) a detailed breakout, by fiscal year, of the staffing and other costs associated with the USSOCOM-NCR over the future years defense program; (5) a description of the relationship between the USSOCOM-NCR and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low- Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC); (6) the role of the ASD SOLIC in providing oversight of USSOCOM-NCR activities; and (7) any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate. Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a budget item related to the use of contractors to support the USSOCOM- NCR. Limitation on funding for Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers (sec. 342) The budget request included $14.7 million for the establishment of Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers (RSCC) in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the expenditure of any funds for the RSCCs in fiscal year 2014 and direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, in coordination with the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, not later than September 30, 2013, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees outlining, at a minimum: (1) the requirement and justification for the establishment of RSCCs; (2) the number and locations of planned RSCCs; (3) the projected cost to establish and maintain the proposed RSCCs in future years; (4) the relevance to and coordination with other multilateral engagement activities and academic institutes supported by the geographic combatant commanders and State Department; and (5) any legislative authorities that may be needed to establish RSCCs. Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends no funding for the RSCCs in fiscal year 2014. Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional Web Initiative (TRWI) (sec. 343) The budget request included $19.7 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Trans Regional Web Initiative (TRWI), a contractor operated and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) funded strategic level military information support operations program. Under the TRWI, USSOCOM establishes and maintains news and information websites in support of certain geographic combatant command's (GCC) countering violent extremism objectives. The committee supports the efforts of USSOCOM and the GCCs to conduct phase zero operations to counter violent extremism, but believes that the costs to operate the websites developed under the TRWI are excessive. The effectiveness of the websites is questionable and the performance metrics do not justify the expense. The committee believes USSOCOM resources are better used to support tactical and operational military information support activities. The committee acknowledges the utility of strategic level information operations activities, but believes they would be more appropriately funded and managed by the State Department and other relevant U.S. Government agencies, with support from USSOCOM, as necessary. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from expending any funds in OMDW to continue the TRWI and the associated websites. Subtitle F--Other Matters Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms (sec. 351) Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84) required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the performance, interoperability, costs, logistics, and patents involved in the services' combat camouflage and utility uniforms. In April 2010, the GAO reported that since 2002, the services continued to develop unique combat and utility uniforms. The committee notes that prior to 2002, the services wore the same pattern and family of combat camouflage and utility uniforms. The GAO found no performance standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and no requirements for the services to test interoperability between their uniforms and other tactical gear, despite the DOD establishing a Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance Board in 2008. The committee remains concerned that until this year, the Department of the Navy chose to equip its sailors and marines with different types of combat uniforms, providing significantly different levels of protection in combat environments. The GAO recently identified that the DOD's fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms could be more efficient, better protect service members, and result in up to $82.0 million in development and acquisition cost savings through increased collaboration among the military services. The committee continues to strongly urge the secretaries of the military departments to explore additional methods for sharing uniform technology across the services as they develop their combat and utility uniforms. The committee continues to believe that combat and utility uniforms should incorporate the most advanced levels of protection and should be available to all men and women in uniform, regardless of the military service in which they serve. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to reduce the separate development and fielding of service-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms in order to collectively adopt and field the same combat and camouflage utility uniforms for use by all members of the armed forces. The committee notes that the recommended provision would also restrict any military service from preventing another military service from authorizing the use of any combat or camouflage utility uniform. Additionally, after the date of enactment of this Act, each military service would be prohibited from adopting new designs for combat and camouflage utility uniforms, including uniforms reflecting changes to the fabric and camouflage patterns used in current combat and camouflage utility uniforms, unless the services adopt a uniform currently in use, all services adopt the same combat or camouflage utility uniform, or the Secretary of Defense determines that unique circumstances or requirements justify an exception to the policy. Authorization to institute a centralized, automated mail redirection system to improve the delivery of absentee ballots to military personnel serving outside the United States (sec. 352) The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.5 million from defense-wide operation and maintenance to the Postal Service Fund for purposes of implementing the modernization of the United States Postal Service's mail delivery system to improve the delivery of absentee ballots to military personnel serving outside the United States. Budget Items Army readiness funding increases The budget request included $35.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $888.1 million was for maneuver units, $1.2 billion was for aviation assets, $3.5 billion was for force readiness operations support, and $1.4 billion was for land forces depot maintenance. The budget request also included $7.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $712.1 million was for facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM). The budget request also included $3.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $294.1 million was for FSRM. The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help offset cuts as a result of sequestration. The committee notes that these recommended increases will improve the Army's fiscal year 2014 flying hour program and ground operations tempo requirements and enable units to conduct additional training to restore readiness lost in fiscal year 2013. The committee also notes that the recommended increase in land forces depot maintenance will allow additional maintenance to occur on aviation assets, ground vehicles, missiles, electronics, and post-production software support. Additionally, the recommended increases for FSRM will increase funding to 90 percent of the fiscal year 2014 requirement for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Accordingly, the committee recommends increases of $195.9 million in OMA for maneuver units, $15.8 million in OMA for aviation assets, $209.9 million in OMA for force readiness operations support, $200.0 million in OMA for land forces depot maintenance, $74.2 million in OMARNG for FSRM, and $36.4 million in OMAR for FSRM. U.S. European Command funding decrease The budget request included $35.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $185.0 million was for combatant commanders core operations. The committee is concerned that the funding increase in the fiscal year 2014 budget request for U.S. European Command's (EUCOM) information operations campaign is unjustified growth. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in OMA (subactivity 138) for EUCOM. Navy readiness funding increases The budget request included $39.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $4.9 billion was for mission and other flight operations, $1.8 billion was for fleet air training, $35.8 million was for aircraft depot operations support, $3.8 billion was for mission and other ship operations, $734.8 million was for ship operations support and training, $5.1 billion was for ship depot maintenance, $1.3 billion was for ship depot operations support, $2.6 million was for depot operations support, and $1.9 billion was for facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM). The budget request also included $1.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), of which $586.6 million was for mission and other flight operations and $100.6 million was for aircraft depot maintenance. The Navy has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help offset cuts as a result of sequestration. The committee notes that these recommended increases in funding will improve the Navy's fiscal year 2014 flying hour program, steaming days, depot maintenance, training, and FSRM to restore readiness lost in fiscal year 2013. Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases in OMN: $32.5 million for mission and other flight operations, $11.2 million in fleet air training, $608,000 in aircraft depot operations support, $99.5 million in mission and other ship operations, $61.4 million in ship operations support and training, $5.7 million in ship depot maintenance, $126.2 million in ship depot operations support, $660,000 in depot operations support, $100.0 million in FSRM. The committee also recommends the following increases in OMNR: $1.9 million in mission and other flight operations and $8.9 million in aircraft depot maintenance. Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support The budget request included $199.1 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support. Of this amount, $3.0 million is for a classified U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) program. The committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million in OMN for the development of the program at PACOM. Marine Corps readiness funding increases The budget request included $6.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $223.3 million was for depot maintenance. The Marine Corps has identified specific amounts in this readiness account that could help offset cuts as a result of sequestration. The committee notes that the recommended increase will improve the Marine Corp's critical depot maintenance requirement to 100 percent in order to restore readiness lost in fiscal year 2013. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $56.0 million in OMMC for depot maintenance. Air Force readiness funding increases The budget request included $37.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.2 billion was for primary combat forces, $1.5 billion was for air operations training, $5.9 billion was for depot maintenance, and $1.8 billion was for facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization (FSRM). The budget request also included $3.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), of which $89.7 million was for FSRM. The budget request also included $6.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $296.9 million was for FSRM. The Air Force has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help offset fiscal year 2013 cuts as a result of sequestration. The committee notes that these recommended increases in amounts will improve the Air Force's fiscal year 2014 flying hour program, weapons systems sustainment, training ranges, and FSRM. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMAF: $220.0 million in primary combat forces, $30.0 million in air operations training, $210.0 million for depot maintenance, and $75.0 million for FSRM. The committee also recommends an increase of $8.7 million in OMAFR for FSRM and an increase of $28.2 million in OMANG for FSRM. Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support The budget request included $1.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support. Of this amount, $22.4 million is for a U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) classified program. The committee recommends a decrease of $22.4 million in OMAF for this classified CENTCOM program. Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers The budget request included $14.7 million for the establishment of Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers (RSCC) in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). According to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the RSCCs would be partner-led multinational organizations designed to ``promote partner-nation SOF [Special Operations Forces] capacity building through coordination, education, and information sharing.'' These RSCCs would function as ``regional operational-level hubs of the larger global SOF network to facilitate cooperation and interoperability among partner- nation SOF and SOF-like organizations.'' To date, the committee has not received appropriate justification and a plan for the establishment of the proposed RSCCs, particularly the costs to sustain RSCC operations in future years. The committee is concerned that the RSCCs may duplicate other efforts by the geographic combatant commanders (GCC), their subordinate component commands, existing GCC regional centers, and complicate diplomatic activities by the State Department and relevant chiefs of mission. In addition, the committee is concerned that the RSCCs as proposed by USSOCOM would be heavily reliant on contractors for planning, study, and engagement activities with funding for such contractors making up nearly the entire budget request for RSCCs in fiscal year 2014. USSOCOM indicates that the RSCCs would be modeled, at least in-part, on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). The committee has been strongly supportive of the NSHQ and its efforts to enhance the capabilities and interoperability of NATO SOF. The efforts of the NSHQ have been especially evident in the increased participation and success of allied SOF in operations in Afghanistan. While the committee agrees there are important lessons to be learned from the NSHQ that can be applied in other regions, the committee believes the NSHQ is a flawed model for the proposed RSCCs. The NATO alliance is unique in the world and the NSHQ has been built on a foundation of longstanding multilateral agreements that underpin its activities. Given the concerns outlined above, the committee recommends no funding in OMDW for the establishment of RSCCs by USSOCOM. U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region The budget request included $10.0 million for the establishment of a U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region (USSOCOM-NCR) office in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. The committee supports efforts by USSOCOM to better coordinate its activities with interagency and multinational partners, most of whom are physically located in the NCR. However, the committee believes that current fiscal constraints dictate that the goals of the USSOCOM-NCR be achieved in a resource and manpower neutral manner. The committee is concerned that two-thirds of the requested funding for the USSOCOM-NCR in fiscal year 2014 would pay for contractor support. The committee believes such a heavy reliance on contractors to implement the USSOCOM-NCR is inconsistent with the purpose of this effort. Therefore, the committee recommends $2.9 million for the USSOCOM-NCR, a reduction of $7.1 million. The committee recommends a provision elsewhere in this title that would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees prior to the expenditure of any fiscal year 2014 funds for the USSOCOM-NCR. 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, and to motivate them to explore STEM 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 service members 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 $21.7 million for the DOD STARBASE program. Defense Security Cooperation Agency The budget request included $788.4 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), of which $85.9 million is to support the operation and maintenance budgets of the five regional centers for security studies. The five centers serve as a forum for bilateral and multilateral communication within a region. Their activities range from extended academic programs to conferences on topics such as regional security issues, defense planning, and civilian-military relations. The committee notes that the regional centers serve an important role in supporting the Secretary of Defense and the geographic combatant commanders, but the committee also notes that the budgets of these centers continue to grow--even after the Secretary of Defense's efficiency initiative explicitly sought to reduce their budgets. In addition, the DSCA budget also included $34.8 million 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; a limited number of regions where the threat posed by terrorism is the most significant; and efforts to offset rising costs such as increased use of virtual education opportunities and programs. As such, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of $12.0 million to OMDW for the DSCA's budget request to support the five regional centers and a decrease of $7.0 million for the CTFP. The committee also directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the geographic combatant commanders to conduct a review of the mission, mandate, curriculum, and other activities of the five regional centers to ensure that their ongoing and planned activities continue to directly support the theater security cooperation campaigns of their respective combatant commanders. The review shall also assess whether the current organizational construct and chain of command associated with the five regional centers is appropriate given the recent presidential guidance on security assistance. As part of the review, the committee urges the USD(P) to focus particular attention on the need to enhance engagement in areas of emerging security interests (e.g. the area of responsibility in U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Central Command) and promoting continued interoperability among International Security Assistance Force partners and capturing the lessons learned from coalition operations in Afghanistan. Following the completion of this review--and no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act--the committee directs the USD(P) to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The committee is aware that the Department has taken steps to establish a governance board to enhance its ability to oversee the centers and has set broad programmatic priorities, but has not yet fully developed an approach for measuring the centers' progress in meeting these priorities, including establishing measurable goals, related performance metrics, and a methodology for assessing performance of the centers. Therefore, as part of the aforementioned briefing, the committee directs the USD(P) to also provide information on the status of its efforts to measure the centers' progress. 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 $371.6 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), of which $273.3 million was for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the relocation of marines to Guam. Given the reevaluation of the relocation of marines to Guam, the committee remains concerned that the funds requested for the OEA are ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $273.3 million in OMDW for the OEA. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy funding decrease The budget request included $32.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $66.0 million was for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD(P)). In light of sequestration reductions and readiness concerns faced by the Department, the committee is concerned by the growth of the OUSD(P) budget request. The committee notes that nearly 50 percent of the OUSD(P) budget is dedicated to contractor support, which in the committee's view, is based on past staffing paradigms and is far too great. As the Department considers areas to make reductions within OUSD(P) to adjust for this cut, the committee expects that the first reductions should target the size and/or cost of the contractor workforce. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 million in OMDW for the OUSD(P). Continuing support for Operation Observant Compass The budget request included $32.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, of which $14.2 billion is for classified programs. Within that amount for classified programs, the request includes classified amounts to sustain intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) included funds to enhance the ISR support to AFRICOM's Operation Observant Compass, an operation to support the efforts of Ugandan and other regional militaries to remove Joseph Kony and other senior leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army from the battlefield in Central Africa. The budget request included funds for commercial aircraft with full motion video sensors. The committee notes that this capability is of limited utility in regions where there is dense canopy, and believes that the Department is paying more than it should for this capability. The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to the request for full motion video surveillance and recommends $40.0 million to sustain the congressionally mandated initiative. Items of Special Interest Additive manufacturing The committee notes that the introduction of additive manufacturing, also known as third dimensional (3-D) printing, has the potential to contribute to Department of Defense (DOD) missions and capabilities with the effective and efficient use of lightweight materials, rapid production, and design innovation. The committee remains concerned that the long lead time often associated with spare parts can in some instances take multiple years to arrive at various DOD depots. The committee notes that the potential to use ceramic composite materials could offer enhanced aircraft performance over metal alloys with higher temperatures ranges, less weight, and greater fuel efficiency. Similarly, a deployable 3-D printing capability could enable a forward operating base with an adaptive and onsite manufacturing capability with a reduced logistical burden. Furthermore, the DOD is providing funding to the recently established National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII). Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than February 1, 2014 on the potential benefits and constraints of additive manufacturing, how the process could or could not contribute to DOD missions, and what technologies being developed at NAMII are being transitioned for DOD use. Advanced situational awareness training The committee understands that the Army has successfully introduced a program to train deploying units to detect changes in human behavior through the Advanced Situational Awareness Training module. The committee commends the Army for continuing to broaden and adapt its training efforts to best enable soldiers to react to the vast array of complex and asymmetrical threats often faced in a combat environment. The committee notes that training to increase situational awareness imparts enduring and important skills for individual soldiers and units, and encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider expanding this type of training to additional deploying units and at the appropriate advanced leadership courses. Air show support by the Department of Defense The Department of Defense issued guidance in early April 2013 prohibiting all aerial demonstrations, including flyovers, jump team demonstrations, and participation in civilian air shows and military open houses. Many believe that this lack of community engagement may have negative consequences on military recruiting and local economies. The committee recognizes that the Department had to take serious steps in order to deal with the effects of sequestration in fiscal year 2013. However, the committee has been informed that there are certain circumstances where an exception to this general policy could provide some level of community engagement as a no-cost addition to activities that are required for training or readiness. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Department of Defense reconsider whether this policy should be enforced on a blanket basis or whether the policy should allow for community engagement if that engagement can be completed as a no-cost adjunct to missions fulfilling other required operational or training activities. Coal-to-liquid fuel technology developments The Department of Defense (DOD), Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-6) provided $20.0 million in Air Force Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) only for research that will improve emissions of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel to enable this technology to be a competitive alternative energy resource. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a detailed spending plan to the committee for the CTL RDT&E program no later than July 31, 2013. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to report to the committee on the feasibility of potential technologies that could enable coal-based fuels to meet the requirements of the DOD consistent with section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law 110-140). The report shall also include a proposal for joint research on those technologies that are most promising for the capture of carbon, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and other approaches that could enable coal-based fuels to be procured under section 526 of the EISA 2007. The DOD shall submit this report to the committee no later than February 1, 2014. Combatant command support agent accounting The committee notes the Operation and Maintenance budget justification material within the Air Force's Combatant Commander Direct Mission Support and Combatant Commander Core Operations (lines 130 and 140) accounts are a consolidation of multiple combatant commands' budgets 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. Comptroller General of the United States review of United States Central Command Since fiscal year 2001, the resources provided to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and its supporting military service components have grown dramatically to conduct and manage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to Department of Defense (DOD) reports provided to Congress, the military and civilian manpower at CENTCOM has more than doubled since fiscal year 2001 and this does not include the contractors that support the headquarters. With the drawdown of operational forces from Iraq and ongoing drawdown from Afghanistan, it will be important to examine levels of headquarters manpower and mission support costs needed by CENTCOM and its respective service component commands to manage steady state operations. As such, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a review of CENTCOM to include the following items: (1) what have been the trends in manpower and mission support costs devoted to the headquarters of CENTCOM, subordinate commands, joint task forces, and service component commands since 2001; (2) what steps has DOD taken to reexamine the size and structure of the headquarters of CENTCOM, subordinate commands, joint task forces, and service component commands in light of the significant drawdown of forces and operations in its area of responsibility and changing U.S. military strategy; (3) what are the future plans for CENTCOM and its service component commands, including any plans to maintain headquarters in forward locations such as Kuwait and Qatar; (4) what changes, if any, should be made to intelligence and other defense functions that support CENTCOM combat operations; (5) what personnel adjustments are recommended at senior levels to right size the command structure; and (6) any other items the Comptroller General determines to be appropriate while conducting this review, including relevant plans regarding right-sizing and properly posturing manpower at headquarters for steady state post-2014. The Comptroller General shall provide the preliminary results of the study to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2013, with a final report to follow as soon as practicable thereafter. Consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde The committee notes that the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff J-4, the military services, and other entities are developing consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde and disposition for equipment currently deployed for use in Operation Enduring Freedom and elsewhere throughout the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The committee notes that the consolidated guidance includes a process outline for transferring excess defense articles (EDA) to coalition partners via the existing Letter of Request/Letter of Acceptance process. Accordingly, the committee directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the progress of the consolidated guidance for equipment retrograde and EDA process no later than January 1, 2014. Contingency basing The committee notes the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a directive on January 10, 2013 which established a policy and assigned responsibility for DOD contingency basing outside the United States. The committee is encouraged by the DOD's intent to pursue increased effectiveness and efficiency in contingency basing to better assist the warfighter. The committee believes that contingency basing while often executed in an expedient fashion, should also take into account the sustainment cost of materials and seek opportunities to reduce the logistical and operational burden of the warfighter. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees of the decision to designate a senior official to be responsible for the oversight of all aspects of contingency basing policy, no later than March 1, 2014. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than March 1, 2014 on the resourcing decisions and progress made regarding the action items published in enclosure 2 of the DOD Directive 3000.10. Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management The committee notes that the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) is the only dedicated institution of the Department of Defense (DOD) for the education and training of U.S. and foreign nation personnel involved in the planning, management, and assessment of security cooperation and partner capacity-building programs conducted under the authorities of the Departments of Defense and State. DISAM is primarily funded via the Department of State authorities, and only in recent years has DISAM been resourced to support training and education on the planning, management, and assessment of DOD security cooperation efforts, including many title 10 programs (e.g., section 1206 train-and-equip authorities, DOD counternarcotics authorities, Joint Combined Exchange Training, and Latin America and African Cooperation authorities). As stated in the budget request, these title 10 programs are of particular importance to DOD in meeting the emergent needs of the geographic combatant commanders in support of theater security campaign plans and contingency operations. However, the committee notes that despite the additional funding to incorporate title 10 authorities into the curriculum at DISAM, security assistance officers deployed overseas remain less informed of the flexible building partnership capacity programs that Congress has provided to DOD over the last decade. As such, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to jointly conduct a full review of the security assistance curriculum at DISAM to ensure that DOD's title 10 programs, particularly DOD's counternarcotics authorities, are incorporated in the curriculum fully. Not later than 30 days following completion of this review, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the committee on their findings and recommendations. Department of Defense and Department of Energy memorandum of understanding to enhance energy security The committee remains encouraged by the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed on July 22, 2010 by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy concerning cooperation in a strategic partnership to enhance energy security. The committee notes that the MOU was to cover, but not limited to, efforts in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, water efficiency, fossil fuels, alternative fuels, efficient transportation technologies and fueling infrastructure, grid security, smart grid, energy storage, waste-to-energy, basic science research, mobile/deployable power, small modular reactor nuclear energy, and related areas. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than January 1, 2014 on the progress made to date regarding the MOU signed on July 22, 2010 to enhance energy security. Energy metering The committee notes that section 2828 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81) required the Secretary of the Navy to meter Navy piers so that the energy consumption of naval vessels while in port can be accurately measured and captured. The committee is encouraged by the utilities meter policy signed on April 16, 2013 which established a Department of Defense (DOD) policy to install advanced meters on individual DOD-owned facilities and directs the services to develop a meter data management plan. The committee is encouraged by the DOD's intent to improve the management of energy and water consumption, improve mission assurance, and increase reliability. The committee recognizes that energy metering alone does not independently save energy or water, which is why the committee strongly encourages the DOD to ensure energy metering data is not only captured but used to implement greater efficiencies, inform decisions, optimize installation performance, and achieve results through better practices. Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the military departments to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee with finalized meter data management plans with proposed practices to achieve greater efficiencies no later than March 1, 2014. Energy security assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review The Secretary of Defense is required every 4 years to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), pursuant to section 118 of title 10, United States Code. The QDR is intended to provide a national defense strategy necessary to successfully execute the full range of missions called for in the national security strategy. The committee believes a defense strategy should consider assured access to energy resources as essential to the Department of Defense's ability to project power and provide combat capability for operations. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), energy security was defined as ``having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential requirements.'' The committee notes a forecast by the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that ``by around 2020, the United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer (overtaking Saudi Arabia until the mid-2020s) and starts to see the impact of new fuel-efficiency measures in transport. The result is a continued fall in U.S. oil imports, to the extent that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030.'' The IEA forecast goes on to say for all types of fuels: ``But there is no immunity from global markets. No country is an energy 'island' and the interactions between different fuels, markets, and prices are intensifying.'' Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the 2013 QDR assessment includes a review of the extent of defense resources and budgets that would be required to successfully carry out an energy security strategy. Foreign exchange program for Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets and critical military language training The committee is encouraged by the Army's efforts to establish a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet foreign exchange program that seeks to enhance cultural understanding, foster regional expertise, and improve foreign language training among cadets in the ROTC. The committee is also encouraged by similar efforts to provide overseas professional development training and education, including opportunities for training in the joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational environment with partner military service members at accredited universities. The committee recognizes the importance of short-term overseas training events in regions and cultures of strategic importance to the nation that could better prepare ROTC cadets to meet the future requirements of our combatant commanders' theater campaign plans. Additionally, the committee encourages the Department of Defense and the Army to provide greater oversight and coordination to ensure the goals of these programs are in concert with the security cooperation strategy and national security objectives. Full spectrum operations The committee is encouraged by the Army and Marine Corps' proposal to plan for training for a full spectrum of operations in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The committee notes that for more than a decade the services have been consumed with preparing and deploying forces for counterinsurgency operations in combat, leaving little time and resources to train for other contingencies. As combat operations decline, the committee encourages the secretaries of the military departments to ensure that sufficient training resources are dedicated to full spectrum operations when preparing the fiscal year 2015 budget request. Government Accountability Office readiness analysis The committee notes that the drawdown of forces first from Iraq and now from Afghanistan presents the Department of Defense (DOD) with a new set of challenges as it plans for an uncertain future with fewer resources. In its January 2012 strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense and related documents, DOD called for a smaller, lighter, and flexible joint force able to conduct a full range of activities but no longer sized to conduct large and protracted stability operations. The guidance also called for a rebalancing of forces to the Asia-Pacific region along with the Middle East and several other changes. In March 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed the Deputy Secretary of Defense to work with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a strategic choices and management review to examine the opportunities and challenges that underlie the defense strategy, posture, and investments, including all past assumptions and systems. The committee notes that shifts in strategy or assumptions can have a material impact on the way DOD portrays its readiness and the risks it faces. Accordingly, to help inform the committee's oversight and its consideration of the Department's budget request, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the Department's readiness and the risks DOD faces and to report the results of this review to the congressional defense committees. The review should specifically address, but not be limited to: (1) the current and historical readiness status of each of the military services including any trends in reported readiness; (2) the current and historical readiness status of each of the current geographic and functional combatant commands, including any trends in reported readiness; (3) the key factors that impact readiness, and how these factors contributed to any reported changes in readiness between March 1, 2013, when sequestration went into effect, and the December 2013 readiness reports; and (4) changes in strategic and military risk levels between 2011 and 2014, including any changes in the way the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluates and reports strategic and military risks. The committee notes that in reporting on these four elements, the Comptroller General may take a phased approach, reporting on elements (1), (2), and (3) by March 15, 2014, and reporting on element (4) 45 days after DOD delivers the annual Chairman's Risk Assessment, as required by section 153 of title 10, United States Code, to the congressional defense committees. Intergovernmental support agreements with state and local governments The committee notes that section 331 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112- 239) provided expanded authorities to the Secretary of Defense to enter into intergovernmental service agreements with state and local governments in order to provide, receive, or share installation-support services if the Secretary determines that the agreement will serve the best interests of the Department of Defense (DOD) by enhancing mission effectiveness or creating efficiencies or economies of scale, including by reducing costs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the committee not later than February 1, 2014, regarding the status of the use of this authority to enter into such agreements. The report shall include: (1) a review of the policy adopted by DOD to guide the development of proposals to share installation support services; (2) a description of the structure and components of intergovernmental agreements, including the adherence to Federal Acquisition Regulations; (3) guidance for delegating authority to enter into such agreements to the installation level; (4) a list of any proposed locations and types of services that are being considered for the use of this authority; and (5) any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate. Light-weight ammunition project under the Defense Production Act, Title III authority The committee notes that under the Defense Production Act, Title III authority, one current project is developing a domestic production capability for light-weight polymer-based ammunition. The committee believes that light-weight ammunition has the potential to decrease the individual load of the warfighter, increase mobility, decrease logistical burden, and reduce fuel consumption in military operations. The committee notes that traditional ammunition cartridges are produced using metallic-based materials such as steel, copper, aluminum, or brass. The committee understands that any new ammunition must meet all specifications for pressure, velocity, accuracy, and must be a drop-in replacement in terms of training, weapon function, lethality, storage, and transportation. Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the military departments to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than February 1, 2014 on the pursuit of additional small arms and ammunition projects which could enhance combat capability, reduce logistical burdens, and improve efficiencies. Marine Corps core depot maintenance policy The committee understands that the Marine Corps policy on core depot maintenance workload is currently under revision. Accordingly, the committee directs the Marine Corps to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the status and progress of a finalized core depot maintenance policy no later than January 1, 2014. Meals ready to eat war reserve The committee is concerned that the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) potential reduction of its Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) war reserve may lower production in a manner that may negatively affect the industrial base which could threaten the DLA's ability to respond to contingency operation capabilities commensurate with service end strength. Therefore, the committee directs the DLA in consultation with the services, to develop a comprehensive strategic plan that ensures an adequate MRE inventory for each of the services that meets both DLA and service-specific requirements, maintains the appropriate levels of MRE war reserves, and provides for a surge capability to support unforeseen contingencies. The DLA shall report to the committee on this plan no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. Mission compatibility reviews The committee is concerned about the implementation of section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) and the Department of Defense's (DOD) collaboration with other involved agencies to ensure that the development of energy sources and the increased resiliency of the commercial electric grid may continue to move forward while protecting the missions of military test and training ranges and installations in the United States. The committee urges DOD to use a consistent standard and process pursuant to Federal Rule 32 CFR Part 211 for all mission compatibility reviews on public or private land and to review offshore energy projects using the same process. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the committee with a report that details the status of its review process on each of its applicants within 90 days of enactment of this Act. Open pit burning of waste in Afghanistan The committee notes with concern the recently released report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) titled, ``Forward Operating Base Salerno: Inadequate Planning Resulted in $5 Million Spent for Unused Incinerators and the Continued Use of Potentially Hazardous Open-Air Burn Pit Operations,'' dated April 2013. In the report the SIGAR concluded, among other things, that Forward Operating Base (FOB) Salerno in Afghanistan constructed two waste incinerators that it has not and will not use. As a result, the FOB Salerno continues to use open pit burning to dispose of waste at the base. Over the past several years, the committee has been concerned about the use of open pit burning to dispose of trash during contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the potential effects the smoke from these pits can have on the health of personnel in the vicinity. As the SIGAR report sets forth, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) regulation 200-2, CENTCOM Contingency Environmental Guidance, dated January 3, 2011, requires that when a base exceeds 100 U.S. personnel for 90 days, it must develop a plan for installing waste disposal technologies, such as incinerators, so that open pit burning operations can cease. The SIGAR report shows that, despite efforts to eliminate open pit burning in favor of incinerators and other methods, some of those efforts have failed and open pit burning continues at some locations. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives by September 30, 2013, on the efforts to reduce reliance on open pit burning of waste at operating bases in Afghanistan. The report shall include: (1) a list of bases that have functioning incinerators installed and in use; (2) for those bases that do not have functioning incinerators in place, an explanation for each as to why incinerators are not in use; (3) a list of all bases or camps in Afghanistan at which the U.S. armed forces use open pit burning as the primary means of disposing of waste; (4) a plan for how the Secretary intends to bring operating bases in Afghanistan into full compliance with Department of Defense regulations and CENTCOM regulations regarding waste disposal; and (5) an assessment of incinerator technologies that are available to the Department of Defense for use in Afghanistan, including any such incinerator technologies that could also contribute to energy production, and any other waste-to-energy strategies. Organizational clothing and equipment The committee notes that a Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) report dated February 22, 2013 found that over the last six years inadequate tracking and recovery procedures resulted in a loss of approximately $20.0 million in unreturned organizational clothing and equipment (OCIE) for redeploying civilians and contractors. The committee notes that this is the second report since 2010 regarding a lack of control over the tracking and recovery of OCIE. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than February 1, 2014 on the corrective action taken, including a time-phased plan with measurable goals and metrics, to address the recommendations in report number DODIG-2013-050 regarding OCIE recovery from civilians and contractor employees. Policies and procedures in handling of hazardous material shipments The committee notes that the Comptroller General of the United States is in the process of conducting a comprehensive review of the policies and procedures by the Department of Defense in the handling of hazardous material shipments pursuant to section 363 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), including the review of Transportation Protective Services (TPS) safety standards for commercial surface carriers transporting dangerous or sensitive cargo on public highways within the United States. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that commercial TPS carrier safety performance standards measured by the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) are not altered to less stringent safety standards during the duration of the Comptroller General review. Readiness concerns under sequestration The committee recognizes that the implementation of sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense (DOD) as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 poses significant risk to the readiness, training, and operational capability of our military forces. The committee remains concerned that the sequestration in fiscal year 2013, and the threat of sequestration in fiscal year 2014 and beyond forces the DOD to cutback combat training exercises, flying hours, steaming hours, and other military training. Other impacts include cancelling and delaying contracts, civilian employee furloughs, civilian hiring freezes, reductions or eliminations of temporary and term employees, deferred facilities maintenance, and the cancelling or postponing of maintenance for ships, aircraft, ground vehicles, and facilities. Additionally, many investment, acquisition, and research and development programs will be negatively impacted if sequestration remains in place. The committee understands from testimony by Department witnesses that the services have already reduced, canceled, or deferred a number of training exercises and scheduled maintenance activities as a result of the sequestration cuts. The Chief of Staff of the Army testified that the Army has ``curtailed training for 80 percent of the force, canceled six brigade combat training center rotations, and cut 37,000 flying hours, initiated termination of 3,100 temporary employees, canceled third and fourth quarter depot maintenance, and are planning to furlough its valued civilian work force.'' The committee understands that along with a higher-than-expected operating tempo in Afghanistan, the Army has an $8.3 billion shortfall for the last 6 months of fiscal year 2013 in the base budget and a $7.8 billion shortfall to overseas contingency operations. The committee notes that by the end of September 2013, only one-third of the Army's Active Duty units are expected to have acceptable readiness ratings. The Chief of Naval Operations testified that the Navy plans to ``reduce intermediate-level ship maintenance, defer an additional 84 aircraft and 184 engines for depot maintenance, and defer eight of 33 planned depot-level surface ship maintenance availabilities'' and that ``by the end of fiscal year 2013, a majority of our non-deployed ships and aviation squadrons--nearly two thirds of the fleet--will be less than fully mission capable and not certified for major combat operations.'' The committee understands the Navy faces a $4.1 billion operation and maintenance (O&M) shortfall and has deferred $1.2 billion in facilities maintenance. The committee understands that the Marine Corps face a $775.0 million shortfall in O&M during fiscal year 2013 as a result of sequestration. The Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that, ``sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will mean that more than half of our non-forward-deployed ground and aviation units will have readiness ratings of C3 or below.'' The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that, ``44 scheduled aircraft depot inductions across all types, models, and series . . . will not occur as a result of sequestration reduction to the fiscal year 2013 budget.'' Additionally, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps predicted that a year from now, air squadrons will have only about half of their aircraft ready. The Secretary of the Air Force testified that sequestration, ``required approximately $10.0 billion in reductions to be taken in the last seven months of fiscal year 2013'' and ``impacts include reductions in weapons systems sustainment that will delay necessary maintenance, increase costs, and take perhaps 2 to 3 years to recover from repair backlogs.'' The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force testified that the Air Force has, ``already ceased operations for one- third of our fighter and bomber force'' and ``will force us to induct 60 less airplanes and 35 less engines into depots'' and ``forced us to reduce approximately 200,000 flying hours in the last 6 months of the year'' and to cut ``220 energy projects in facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization'' due to sequestration. The committee believes that sequestration cuts to the DOD are arbitrary and irrational. The committee notes that continued budget uncertainty further jeopardizes the DOD's ability to defend our Nation. Sequestration cuts increase operational and strategic risk by deferring vital maintenance and cancelling necessary training, and will cost the Nation more over time to recover from this damage. Report by Installation Command on Kwajalein Atoll The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding to have U.S. Army Installation Command maintain certain infrastructure at the Kwajalein Atoll. The committee is pleased with bringing the expertise of the Installation Command to help manage certain aspects of the Atoll's infrastructure. However, given the unique and important nature of test facilities at the Atoll and its remoteness, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report on the Installation Command's long-term management plan for the Atoll. The report shall be due not later than April 30, 2014. Report on the identification of a hollow force The committee recognizes that the implementation of sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense (DOD) as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, poses significant risk to the readiness, training, and operational capability of our military forces and the potential of a hollow force. Accordingly, not later than February 1, 2014, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, submit to the committee a report on criteria and means for identifying the existence of a so-called ``hollow force''. The report shall include a definition of what constitutes a hollow force for each branch of the Armed Forces and a description of the criteria and metrics used to assess the existence and extent of a hollow force. The report shall also include for each military department, an assessment whether, and if so to what extent, its operating forces are hollow as determined using the above-cited criteria and metrics, and if such operating forces are hollow, a mitigation plan to restore those forces to an acceptable level of readiness such that they no longer meet the definition of a hollow force. The report shall also explain how the Department will use the Defense Readiness Reporting System and other readiness assessment and reporting systems to monitor and manage risk related to the hollowing of operating forces. The committee notes that each Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress, as required by section 482 of title 10, United States Code, shall include a description and explanation for each service with respect to evidence and management of risk of operating forces becoming or having become hollow. The committee also directs the Comptroller General to review the report required above and not later than March 15, 2014, provide the congressional defense committee as assessment of the elements of the report as established above. Lastly, the committee notes that the report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. Review of defense headquarters and combatant command resources The committee notes the significant growth in the geographic combatant commands over the past decade and is concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) should take steps to ensure adequate oversight of those commands. In its May 2013 report titled ``Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Periodically Review and Improve Visibility of Combatant Command Resources'' (GAO-13-293), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found significant growth in the resources being devoted to the geographic combatant commands and weaknesses in the processes used by DOD to periodically evaluate the size and structure of the geographic combatant commands, as well as limitations in the information used to oversee the commands. The report also brought into focus a longstanding concern of the committee about DOD's reporting to Congress; specifically, the report found that congressional oversight may be hampered because current budget justification documents do not specify the personnel and budget resources being devoted to each combatant command, among other limitations. The trends reported by the Comptroller General are concerning in light of DOD's recent efforts to reduce headquarters and other overhead. Over the past decade (excluding U.S. Central Command due to the large-scale operations in that area of responsibility over the period), the geographic combatant commands authorized positions grew by nearly 50 percent and included more than 10,000 military and civilian positions in fiscal year 2012, plus an unknown number of supporting contractors and temporary personnel. Since 2008, their supporting service component commands grew by about 30 percent to about 7,800 authorized positions in fiscal year 2012. The cost to operate and support the commands has also ballooned. After adjusting for inflation, the costs to operate and support the headquarters of the combatant commands more than doubled since 2007 and now totaled more than $1.1 billion annually. Costs to operate and support the headquarters of the service component commands also increased substantially since 2007 and totaled more than $600.0 million annually. GAO made four recommendations to improve processes for evaluating requirements and provide better visibility of personnel and resources. The committee was pleased to see that DOD concurred with three of the four recommendations, including providing region-by-region resource breakdowns in future budget justification documents. However, the Joint Staff non-concurred with a key recommendation that it take an active role in overseeing the size and structure of the combatant commands, including periodic reviews to ensure that the resources being devoted to the commands are commensurate with their assigned missions and priorities. The committee urges the DOD to take steps to implement all of the recommendations of GAO and looks forward to reviewing the future budget justifications provided by DOD. If the Department concludes that the Joint Staff is the wrong entity to undertake periodic reviews and ensure that staffing and resource levels are appropriate, the committee directs the Secretary to establish alternative mechanisms for providing such oversight on a periodic basis. Small modular reaction study The committee continues to be concerned about the survivability, sustainability, and significant logistical costs of fuel and water associated with the support of deployed personnel at remote forward operating bases. The availability of deployable, cost-effective, regulated, and secure small modular reactors with a modest output electrical power (less than 10 megawatts) could improve combat capability and improve deployed conditions for the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee understands the pursuit of such an endeavor invites ample concerns, not limited to: technical feasibility, policy oversight and regulation, robust safety and secure design features, logistics and resources, proliferation concerns, life cycle costs, deployment policies and transportability, personnel costs, and lessons learned from recent combat operations. Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the challenges, operational requirements, constraints, cost, and life cycle analysis for a small modular reactor of less than 10 megawatts no later than January 1, 2015. Tungsten rhenium wire for Department of Defense requirements The committee is aware that the manufacturing of tungsten and molybdenum powders, including tungsten rhenium (WRe) wire, is used in a variety of Department of Defense (DOD) applications. The committee is aware that currently there are not suitable substitutes available for WRe wire. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2014, with a determination as to whether DOD has a sufficient supply of WRe wire to support DOD requirements. If not, the Secretary shall also submit a mitigation plan to ensure that DOD has a sufficient supply of WRe wire to support its requirements. Unfunded requirements from the service chiefs The committee remains concerned, particularly in light of sequestration, that after more than a dozen years of combat operations and high operations tempo, backlogs of deferred depot maintenance remain unexecuted. The committee understands that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to face significant challenges with respect to competing budget priorities. The committee notes that a continued failure to address the depot maintenance backlog will jeopardize and erode materiel readiness, further reduce the expected service life of DOD equipment, increase long-term sustainment costs, and further increase strategic risk for the Nation. Despite this depot maintenance backlog, DOD continues to underfund critical readiness accounts. In past years, the committee has been able to provide additional support and funding for DOD through unfunded requirements lists submitted by the service chiefs. The committee continues to strongly urge DOD to identify and provide a list of service-specific unfunded requirements with each fiscal year's budget request. United States Africa Command United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) is the smallest of the Department of Defense's regionally-focused combatant commands with fewer than 5,000 service members on the continent of Africa, 54 countries and over 12 million square miles. The United States no longer has the luxury of ignoring Africa; and AFRICOM, while still a relatively new combatant command, has been thrust to the forefront of our Nation's security interests. Terrorist groups, including some affiliated with al Qaeda, are growing in numbers and capability, and have expanded their areas of operation. Many of our partners in the region, however, still lack the capacity to effectively combat these organizations and require further support. AFRICOM will be a vital component to this effort. Despite the challenges within its area of responsibility and its massive size, AFRICOM suffers from persistent resource shortfalls. It has no assigned forces, lacks sufficient intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and mobility support to meet theater requirements, and must rely on manpower from United States Central Command and United States European Command. This committee understands the need to properly resource AFRICOM and supports its efforts to build partnerships and combat the terrorist threat posed by violent extremists filtering down to Africa in response to successful U.S. and multilateral operations in other regions. 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 2014, as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from FY 2013 ------------------------------------------------------- Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013 Request Recommendation request authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army....................................... 552,100 520,000 520,000 0 -32,100 Navy....................................... 322,700 323,600 323,600 0 900 Marine Corps............................... 197,300 190,200 190,200 0 -7,100 Air Force.................................. 329,460 327,600 327,600 0 -1,860 -------------------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total.............................. 1,401,560 1,361,400 1,361,400 0 -40,160 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The committee supports the Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal year 2014 end strength request for active forces, but remains concerned about the impact the drawdown is having on service members and their families. The committee urges the services to use involuntary measures sparingly, especially for those with significant years of service but who are not yet eligible for retirement. The committee recognizes that the services must balance the need to reduce overall end strength while ensuring the proper force mix, and avoiding grade and occupational disparities where possible, which have long-term effects that can take years to correct. In recent years, Congress has provided authorities requested by DOD that allow it to execute the drawdown in a measured, responsible way. The committee expects DOD to manage the drawdown accordingly. The committee also remains concerned about the impact that sequestration would have in 2014 and beyond on end strength levels for both the active and reserve components. The Army Chief of Staff has testified that the Army would reduce total force end strength by an additional 100,000 soldiers should sequestration continue beyond 2013. The committee expects that the other services may make reductions in end strength to meet Budget Control Act targets. The committee expects DOD to begin planning now for how it would address end strength in 2014 and beyond should sequestration continue in order to mitigate the effects such potential reductions in force would have on morale, recruiting, and retention. 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 2014, as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from FY 2013 ----------------------------------------------------- Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013 Request Recommendation request authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army National Guard........................... 358,200 354,200 354,200 0 -4,000 Army Reserve.................................. 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0 Navy Reserve.................................. 62,500 59,100 59,100 0 -3,400 Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0 Air National Guard............................ 105,700 105,400 105,400 0 -300 Air Force Reserve............................. 70,880 70,400 70,400 0 -480 ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total................................. 841,880 833,700 833,700 0 -8,180 Coast Guard Reserve........................... 9,000 9,000 9,000 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 2014, as shown below: FY 2014 Change from Service FY 2013 authorized Request Recommendation FY 2014 FY 2013 request authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from FY 2013 ----------------------------------------------------- Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013 Request Recommendation request authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army National Guard........................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0 Army Reserve.................................. 16,277 16,261 16,261 0 -16 Navy Reserve.................................. 10,114 10,159 10,159 0 45 Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 Air National Guard............................ 14,765 14,734 14,734 0 -31 Air Force Reserve............................. 2,888 2,911 2,911 0 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total................................. 78,365 78,386 78,386 0 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 for fiscal year 2014, as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from FY 2013 ----------------------------------------------------- Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013 Request Recommendation request authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army National Guard........................... 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0 Army Reserve.................................. 8,395 8,395 8,395 0 0 Air National Guard............................ 22,180 21,875 21,875 0 -305 Air Force Reserve............................. 10,400 10,429 10,429 0 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOD Total................................. 68,185 67,909 67,909 0 -276 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 2014 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 for fiscal year 2014, as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from FY 2013 ----------------------------------------------------- Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013 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, for fiscal year 2014, as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Change from FY 2013 ----------------------------------------------------- Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013 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--Authorizations 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] Permanent Change of Station travel funding.............. -150.0 Undistributed reduction related to pace of drawdown..... -120.0 Total............................................... -270.0 The committee recommends a decrease of $150.0 million in Military Personnel funding to reflect the recent trend of the services underexecuting their Permanent Change of Station (PCS) travel funding due to efficiencies resulting from longer tour lengths, fewer moves, and lower disbursement rates. The committee expects the services to continue to achieve efficiencies in their PCS travel programs, particularly as the Department fully implements the consolidated travel reform enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The committee also recommends a decrease of $120.0 million in Military Personnel funding to reflect the services' underexecution in various accounts relating to the drawdown and the redeployment of forces from Afghanistan, including lower officer and enlisted average strengths, subsistence costs, and lower than budgeted deployment costs. TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 501) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 533 of title 10, United Sates Code, to authorize service secretaries to award constructive service credit upon original appointment as a commissioned officer for special experience or training in certain cyberspace-related fields and for periods of advanced education in certain cyberspace-related fields beyond the baccalaureate degree level. Constructive service credited under this provision is limited to 1 year for each year of special experience, training, or advanced education, and 3 years total of constructive service credit. Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management Information to be provided to boards considering officers for selective early removal from the reserve active-status list (sec. 506) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14704(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require service secretaries to specify the number of officers that a selection board may recommend for removal from the reserve active-status list, and to require the secretary to submit a list of officers to the selection board that includes each officer on the reserve active-status list in the same grade and competitive category in the zone of consideration except for officers who have been approved for voluntary retirement or who will be involuntarily retired. This would align the statutory procedures for a board convened to consider officers with sufficient qualifying service for early removal from the reserve active-status list with the procedures required for an active-duty selective early retirement board. Removal of restrictions on the transfer of officers between the active and inactive National Guard (sec. 507) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the transfer of officers of the Army and Air National Guard from the Selected Reserve to the inactive National Guard and from the inactive National Guard to the Selected Reserve during the period ending on December 31, 2016. This authority currently exists for enlisted members of the Army and Air National Guard. Limitation on certain cancellations of deployment of reserve component units within 180 days of scheduled date of deployment (sec. 508) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to personally approve of any decision to cancel the deployment of a reserve component unit within 180 days of its scheduled deployment date when an active-duty unit would be sent instead to perform the same mission, and to notify the congressional defense committees and Governors concerned whenever such a decision is made. The committee notes with displeasure the decision of the Army in March 2013 to cancel the deployment of four National Guard units from Indiana for missions in the Horn of Africa and the Sinai Peninsula and replace them with active component forces for the purpose of addressing a fiscal year 2013 budget shortfall. Two of these units, approximately 500 people, were within 6 weeks of departure, and the remaining two units were within 90 days of departure. All units had been mobilized in October 2012 and had been preparing for the mission since that time. The Army described this as a ``short fuse decision,'' but its impact has been wide ranging on the National Guard in Indiana and the communities that support these service members. Over 1,000 families lost access to TRICARE benefits, after all had been enrolled in the TRICARE Early Eligibility Program 180 days ahead of their scheduled deployment date. Additionally, many service members made financial decisions and commitments based on the projected pay and benefits that accompany a year- long deployment. Students missed deadlines to apply for financial aid because they expected to be deployed. Some service members had already terminated leases. Moreover, these units will be placed at the bottom of rotation for future deployments, and will have lost a year of eligibility for deployment. The committee is concerned that this type of decision indicates a disregard for the preparation of reserve component forces for deployment and the impact that a last-minute cancellation of deployment, for reasons other than a change in mission requirements, can have on morale, retention, and training. This provision is not intended to limit the flexibility of the Army to cancel the deployment of reserve component forces for the purpose of replacing them with active component units, but rather to ensure that strategic thought is given to reserve component mobilization and the determination to cancel a deployment. National Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 509) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 509 of title 32, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to use the National Guard to conduct the National Guard Youth Challenge Program; and require the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to conduct the program in such states as the Chief considers appropriate, to prescribe the standards and procedures for selecting program participants, and to submit a report to Congress annually on the program. Subtitle C--General Service Authorities Expansion and enhancement of authorities relating to protected communications of members of the Armed Forces and prohibited retaliatory actions (sec. 511) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1034 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance protections for military whistleblowers. Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members (sec. 512) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the armed forces to accommodate individual expressions of belief of service members unless such expressions could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline. Department of Defense Inspector General reports on compliance with requirements for the protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and their chaplains (sec. 513) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) to assess and report to Congress on the compliance of the Department of Defense with regulations promulgated under section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), within 180 days of promulgation. The provision would also require the DOD IG to investigate the Department's and the services' compliance with those regulations with respect to adverse personnel actions within 18 months of promulgating the regulations. Subtitle D--Member Education and Training Authority for joint professional military education Phase II instruction and credit to be offered and awarded through senior-level course of School of Advanced Military Studies of the United States Army Command and General Staff College (sec. 521) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2151(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the School of Advanced Military Studies senior-level course at the Army Command and General Staff College to offer joint professional military education Phase II instruction and credit. Authority for Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to support undergraduate and other medical education and training programs for military medical personnel (sec. 522) The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2112(a) and 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to provide greater flexibility to the Secretary of Defense, through the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), to access existing federal resources outside of the National Capital Region and to enable the USUHS to grant undergraduate degrees, certificates, and certifications in addition to advanced degrees. Expansion of eligibility for associate degree programs under the Community College of the Air Force (sec. 523) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9315(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Community College of the Air Force to award associate degrees to enlisted members of services other than the Air Force who participate in joint-service medical training and education or instructors in such joint-service medical training and education. Additional requirements for approval of educational programs for purposes of certain educational assistance under laws administered by the Secretary of Defense (sec. 524) The committee recommends a provision that would establish a new section 2006a of title 10, United States Code, to require that educational institutions participating in certain Department of Defense education assistance programs enter into and comply with program participation agreements under title IV of the Higher Education Act, and to meet certain other standards. The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive these requirements in certain cases. Enhancement of mechanisms to correlate skills and training for military occupational specialties with skills and training required for civilian certifications and licenses (sec. 525) The committee recommends a provision that would require the service secretaries to make information on civilian credentialing opportunities available to members of the armed forces during all stages of their military occupational specialty training. The provision would also require the service secretaries to provide information on military course training curricula, syllabi, and materials, levels of military advancement attained, and professional skills developed by service members, to civilian credentialing agencies and entities approved by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or by state approving agencies, for the purposes of the administration of education benefits under the purview of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Coverage of military occupational specialties relating to military information technology under pilot program on receipt of civilian credentials for skills required for military occupational specialties (sec. 526) The committee recommends a provision that would require that the military occupational specialties designated for the purposes of the pilot program on receipt of civilian credentials authorized by section 558 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) include those specialties relating to the military information technology workforce. Sense of Senate on the Troops-to-Teachers Program (sec. 527) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of the Senate to strongly urge the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Troops-to-Teachers Program is a priority of the Nation's commitment to the higher education of members of the armed forces, and to provide funds to the Troops-to-Teacher Program in order to help separating members of the armed forces and veterans who wish to transition into a teaching career. Conforming amendment relating to renaming of North Georgia College and State University as University of North Georgia (sec. 528) The committee recommends a provision that would amend paragraph (6) of section 2111a(f) of title 10, United States Code, to change the name of North Georgia College and State University to University of North Georgia to reflect the name change of this institution. Subtitle E--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Military Justice Matters Part I--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by individuals who have been convicted of certain sexual offenses (sec. 531) The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code to prohibit the commissioning or enlistment in the armed forces of individuals who have been convicted of felony offenses of rape or sexual assault, forcible sodomy, incest, or of an attempt to commit these offenses. Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is accused of committing a sexual assault or related offense (sec. 532) The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 39 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to provide guidance for commanders regarding their authority to make a timely determination and to take action regarding whether a service member serving on active duty who is alleged to have committed specified sexual offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be temporarily reassigned or removed from a position of authority or from an assignment, not as a punitive measure, but solely for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline within the unit. Issuance of regulations applicable to the Coast Guard regarding consideration of request for permanent change of station or unit transfer by victim of sexual assault (sec. 533) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 673(b) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the requirement for timely determination and action on an application by a victim of certain sexual offenses for a change of station or unit transfer applies to the Coast Guard. Inclusion and command review of information on sexual-related offenses in personnel service records of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 534) The committee recommends a provision that would require that substantiated complaints of a sexual-related offense resulting in a court-martial conviction, non-judicial punishment, or administrative action be noted in the service record of the service member, regardless of the member's grade. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations requiring commanders to review the history of substantiated sexual offenses of service members permanently assigned to the commander's facility, installation, or unit. Enhanced responsibilities of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office for Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program (sec. 535) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1611(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (the Director) to: (1) oversee development and implementation of the comprehensive policy for the Department of Defense (DOD) sexual assault prevention and response program; (2) serve as the single point of authority, accountability, and oversight for the sexual assault prevention and response program; (3) undertake responsibility for the oversight of the implementation of the sexual assault prevention and response program by the armed forces; (4) collect and maintain data of the military departments on sexual assault; (5) provide oversight to ensure that the military departments maintain documents relating to allegations and complaints of sexual assault involving service members and courts-martial or trials of service members for sexual assault offenses; (6) act as a liaison between DOD and other federal and state agencies on programs and efforts relating to sexual assault prevention and response; (7) oversee development of strategic program guidance and joint planning objectives for resources in support of the sexual assault prevention and response program, and make recommendations on modifications to policy, law, and regulations needed to ensure the continuing availability of such resources; and (8) provide the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) any records or documents on sexual assault in the armed forces, including restricted reports with the approval of the individuals who filed such reports, that are required for the purposes of the administration of the laws administered by the Secretary of the VA. The provision would amend subtitle A of title XVI of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the Director to collect and maintain data from the services on sexual assaults involving service members and to develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of, and compliance with, the training and awareness objectives on sexual assault and prevention. The provision would also amend section 1631(f) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the service secretaries to include in the case synopsis portion of the annual report regarding sexual assaults involving members of the armed forces the unit of each service member accused of committing a sexual assault and the unit of each service member who is a victim of a sexual assault. Comprehensive review of adequacy of training for members of the Armed Forces on sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 536) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to review the adequacy of: (1) the training provided to service members on sexual assault prevention and response, and (2) the training, qualifications, and experience of each service member and Department of Defense civilian employee assigned to a position that includes responsibility for sexual assault prevention and response. The provision would require the Secretary to take appropriate corrective action to address any deficiencies identified during these reviews and to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the findings and responsive action, including recommendations for legislative action, on the adequacy of the training, qualifications, and experience of each service member and Department of Defense civilian employee assigned to a position that includes responsibility for sexual assault prevention and response. Availability of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators for members of the National Guard and the Reserves (sec. 537) The committee recommends a provision that would require service secretaries to ensure that each member of the National Guard or Reserve who is the victim of a sexual assault either during the performance of duties as a member of the National Guard or Reserve, or is a victim of a sexual assault by another member of the Guard or Reserve, has access to a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator not later than 2 business days following a request for such assistance. Retention of certain forms in connection with Restricted Reports and Unrestricted Reports on sexual assault involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 538) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 577(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that copies of Department of Defense Forms 2910 and 2911 filed in connection with Restricted Reports and Unrestricted Reports of sexual assault are retained for the longer of 50 years or the period that such forms are required to be retained pursuant to Department of Defense Directives. Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual assault committed by members of the Armed Forces (sec. 539) The committee recommends a provision that would require the service secretaries to implement a program to provide a Special Victims' Counsel to service members who are victims of a sexual assault committed by a member of the armed forces. The Special Victims' Counsel would provide legal advice and assistance to the victim in connection with criminal and civil legal matters related to the sexual assault. Sense of Congress on commanding officer responsibility for command climate free of retaliation (sec. 540) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of Congress that: (1) commanding officers are responsible for establishing a command climate in which sexual assault allegations are properly managed and fairly evaluated and a victim can report criminal activity, including sexual assault, without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group pressure from other members of the command; (2) the failure of commanding officers to maintain such a command climate is an appropriate basis for relief from their command positions; and (3) senior officers should evaluate subordinate commanding officers on their performance in establishing a command climate free of retaliation. Commanding officer action on reports on sexual offenses involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 541) The committee recommends a provision that would require commanding officers to immediately refer to the appropriate military criminal investigation organization reports of sexual- related offenses involving service members in the commander's chain of command. Department of Defense Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault (sec. 542) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1034(c)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Inspector General to review and investigate allegations of retaliatory personnel actions for making a protected communication regarding violations of law or regulation that prohibit rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct. Advancement of submittal deadline for report of independent panel on assessment of military response systems to sexual assault (sec. 543) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(c)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to provide that the panel established to conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault and related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice would terminate no later than one year after the first meeting of the panel. Assessment of clemency in the military justice system and of database of alleged offenders of sexual assault as additional duties of independent panel on review and assessment of systems to respond to sexual assault cases (sec. 544) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel established to conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to also include an assessment of: (1) the opportunities for clemency provided in the military and civilian systems, the appropriateness of clemency proceedings in the military system, the manner in which clemency is used in the military system, and whether clemency in the military justice system could be reserved until the end of the military appeals process; and (2) the means by which the name, if known, and other necessary identifying information of an alleged offender that is collected as part of a restricted report of a sexual assault could be compiled into a protected, searchable database accessible only to military criminal investigators, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, or other appropriate personnel for the purpose of identifying subjects of multiple accusations of sexual assault and encouraging victims to make an unrestricted report to facilitate increased prosecution of serial offenders. Assessment of provisions and proposed provisions of law on sexual assault prevention and response as additional duties of independent panels for review and assessment of Uniform Code of Military Justice and judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases (sec. 545) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel established to conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to assess: (1) the effectiveness of the provisions of law on sexual assault prevention and response in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014; and (2) the potential effectiveness of the provisions of law on sexual assault prevention and response that were offered but not adopted during the markup by the Senate Committee on Armed Services of the bill to enact the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The provision would also require the panel established to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses to: (1) monitor and assess the implementation of the provisions of law on judicial proceedings in connection with sexual assault in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014; and (2) assess the potential effectiveness of provisions of law on judicial proceedings that were offered but not adopted during the markup by the Senate Committee on Armed Services of the bill to enact the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Assessment of compensation and restitution of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as additional duty of independent panel on review and assessment of judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases (sec. 546) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel established to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses to assess the adequacy of the provision of compensation and restitution for victims of offenses under the UCMJ and to develop recommendations on expanding such compensation and restitution. Part II--Related Military Justice Matters Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on trial by court- martial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes (sec. 551) The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 43 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 843 of title 10, United States Code) to eliminate the 5-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for sexual assault and sexual assault of a child. Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual offenses to trial by court-martial (sec. 552) The committee recommends a provision that would require review of decisions not to refer charges of rape or sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses to trial by court-martial. In any case in which the staff judge advocate recommends that the charges be referred to trial by court-martial and the convening authority decides not to refer the charges to trial by court-martial, the convening authority would be required to forward the case file to the service secretary for review. In cases where the staff judge advocate recommends that the charges not be referred to trial by court- martial and the convening authority agrees, the convening authority would be required to forward the case file to a superior commander authorized to exercise general court-martial convening authority for review. Defense counsel interview of complaining witnesses in presence of trial counsel or outside counsel (sec. 553) The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 846 of title 10, United States Code) to require that, upon notice by trial counsel to defense counsel that trial counsel intends to call a complaining witness to testify at an investigation under Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 842 of title 10, United States Code) or court-martial, the defense counsel must make all requests to interview the complaining witness through the trial counsel, and, if requested by the complaining witness, the defense counsel interview shall take place only in the presence of the trial counsel, counsel for the witness, or outside counsel. Mandatory discharge or dismissal for certain sex-related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and trial of such offenses by general courts-martial (sec. 554) The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 56 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (section 856 of title 10, United States Code) to require that the punishment for convictions of violations of Articles 120, 120b, or 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sections 920, 920b, or 925 of title 10, United States Code), include, at a minimum, a dismissal or dishonorable discharge. The provision would also amend Article 18 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 818 of title 10, United States Code) to provide that only general courts-martial have jurisdiction over charges of violations of articles 120, 120b, or 125 of the UCMJ. Limitation on authority of convening authority to modify findings of a court-martial (sec. 555) The committee recommends a provision that would amend article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 860 of title 10, United States Code) to limit the authority of a convening authority to modify the findings of a court-martial to qualified offenses for which the maximum sentence of confinement that could be adjudged does not exceed 1 year and the sentence adjudged by the court-martial does not include a punitive discharge or confinement for more than 6 months. Qualified offenses do not include offenses under Articles 120, 120a, 120b, and 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sections 920, 920a, 920b, and 920c of title 10, United States Code). The provision would also require the convening authority to explain, in writing, any action to modify the findings or sentence of a court-martial and require the written explanation to be made a part of the record of trial. Participation by complaining witnesses in clemency phase of courts- martial process (sec. 556) The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 60(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 860(b) of title 10, United States Code) to: (1) afford a complaining witness an opportunity to respond to any clemency matters submitted by an accused to the convening authority that refer to the complaining witness; (2) afford a complaining witness an opportunity to submit matters to the convening authority in any case in which findings and sentence have been adjudged for an offense involving the complaining witness; and (3) prohibit the convening authority from considering matters that go to the character of a complaining witness unless the matters were presented at the court-martial. Secretary of Defense report on modifications to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between military instructors and trainees (sec. 557) 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 a report on whether legislative action is required to modify the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code) to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between military instructors and their trainees. Sense of Senate on disposition of charges involving certain sexual misconduct offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice through courts-martial (sec. 558) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of the Senate that charges of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses should be disposed of by court-martial rather than by non-judicial punishment or administrative action, and that the disposition authority should include in the case file a justification in any case where these charges are disposed of by non-judicial punishment or administrative action. Sense of Senate on the discharge in lieu of court-martial of members of the Armed Forces who commit sexual-related offenses (sec. 559) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of the Senate that: (1) the armed forces should be sparing in discharging in lieu of court-martial service members who have committed rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit such offenses, and should do so only when the facts of the case clearly warrant such discharge; (2) whenever possible, victims of these offenses should be consulted about the discharge of the service member; (3) commanding officers should consider the views of these victims when determining whether to discharge service members in lieu of court-martial; and (4) discharges of service members in lieu of court-martial for the specified offenses should be characterized as Other Than Honorable. Part III--Other Military Justice and Legal Matters Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 561) The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 142 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 942 of title 10, United States Code) to authorize appointment of former commissioned officers of a regular component of an armed force as judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. However, these former officers may not be appointed as a judge of the court within seven years after relief from active duty. Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 562) The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 925 of title 10, United States Code) to prohibit forcible sodomy and bestiality. Prohibition of retaliation against members of the Armed Forces for reporting a criminal offense (sec. 563) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that prohibit retaliation against an alleged victim or other member of the armed forces who reports a criminal offense. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, setting forth recommendations as to whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be amended to prohibit retaliation against an alleged victim or other member of the armed forces who reports a criminal offense. Extension of crime victims' rights to victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 564) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to recommend modifications to the Manual for Courts-Martial and to promulgate regulations to ensure compliance by responsible members of the armed forces and personnel of the Department of Defense with the obligation to enforce specified rights of victims of military crimes, including mechanisms for ensuring that victims of military crimes are afforded the rights in all applicable proceedings. Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to eliminate factor relating to character and military service of the accused in rule on initial disposition of offenses (sec. 565) The committee recommends a provision that would require that the discussion pertaining to Rule 306 of the Manual for Courts-Martial be amended, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to strike the character and military service of the accused from the factors a commander should consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense. Subtitle F--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 civilian employees of the DOD. 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. Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards Matters relating to Medals of Honor and other medals of high precedence for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 581) The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3744, 6247, and 8744 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the award of more than one Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, or Distinguished Service Medal to a person whose subsequent acts justify an additional award. The provision would also amend sections 3744 and 8744 of title 10, United States Code, to require that recommendations for the award of the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Air Force Cross, or Distinguished Service Medal for members of the Army and Air Force be made within 3 years and that the award be made within 5 years after the date of the act justifying the award. These timelines are consistent with the timelines for comparable awards in the Navy and Marine Corps. Recodification and revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll (sec. 582) The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a roll designated as the ``Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll'' and require the service secretaries to record on this roll the name of each person who has been awarded a Medal of Honor. The provision would also amend section 1562 of title 38, United States Code, to provide for the automatic enrollment and payment of the special pension to living Medal of Honor recipients. Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Robert F. Keiser for valor during the Korean War (sec. 583) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service Cross under Section 3742 of title 10, United States Code, to Robert F. Keiser for acts of valor during the Korean War. Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Sergeant First Class Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 584) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service Cross under section 3742 of title 10, United States Code, to Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during the Vietnam War. Subtitle H--Other Matters Additional requirements for accounting for members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing (sec. 591) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1501 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Prisoner of War/ Missing Personnel Affairs to conduct periodic briefings for families of missing persons on Department activities to account for those persons. Expansion of privileged information authorities to debriefing reports of certain recovered persons who were never placed in a missing status (sec. 592) The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1506 and 1513 of title 10, United States Code, to include as privileged information, for the purposes of personnel files maintained under the system for accounting for missing persons, any survival, evasion, resistance, and escape debriefing reports by certain persons returned to United States control under a promise of confidentiality. Items of Special Interest Availability of Assaultive Offender's Group Treatment program The United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, offers Assaultive Offender's Group Treatment (AO) to inmates that are confined for violent offenses. It is part of a comprehensive behavioral health program developed to meet the unique needs of military inmates confined at the USDB, and is tailored to address the needs of each inmate. The AO program consists of 30 group treatment sessions which normally meet weekly with 8-10 inmates per group. The USDB reports that they have only been able to run one AO group per year due to staffing limitations. There are currently over 60 inmates on the waitlist for the program, resulting in a wait for over two years for some inmates who may desire to complete this program as part of their program of rehabilitation to be considered by a service clemency and parole board. The committee is concerned about the long wait time for inmates to participate in the AO program and directs the Commandant of the USDB to assess courses of action to reduce wait times and to provide the defense committees a report on his assessment no later than 180 days after passage of this act. Combat injured military technician (dual status) retention under Wounded Warrior Act authority Section 10216(g) of title 10, United States Code, enacted by section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), authorizes the services to retain military technicians (dual status) as non-dual status technicians when losing their military membership due to combat-related injuries. The provision was intended to ensure that no dual status technician, required by statute to maintain military membership in a reserve component as a condition of their civilian employment, was unfairly treated due to injuries sustained in combat. The committee is aware of reports that this authority has rarely, if ever, been used despite many military technicians having been separated or retired since then with combat-related injuries. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by September 1, 2013, the following: (1) the number of dual status technicians who have been retained as non-dual status technicians under the authority of section 10216(g); (2) the number of dual status technicians separated or retired with combat-related injuries since January 28, 2008; and (3) the number of technicians so separated or retired who qualified, or should have qualified, for retention under section 10216(g). Command knowledge of civilian convictions of service members for sexual assault The committee notes that it is possible for a service member to commit and be convicted of sexual assault at an off- post location without the command knowing of the conviction. The Department of Defense primarily relies on local police or blotter reports, periodic security clearance initiations and renewals, and self-reporting to monitor off-post criminal actions of service members. As a general rule, service members are not subject to periodic criminal record checks during their period of service unless they require a security clearance review or initiation, or are accepted into programs where background checks are required. This process could create a loophole for a sexual predator to serve in the military without the knowledge of the chain of command. General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, addressed these loopholes for felony or serious offenders in the a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing on sexual assault on June 4, 2013, stating: ``Background checks are done, but the ability to identify sexual offenders is certainly not 100 percent right now, and we have to do a better job of doing that. We need help with having a better database, but also making sure we're scrutinizing those as we go forward.'' Accordingly, as the military contends with the serious issue of identifying and prosecuting sexual predators, the committee expresses concern that service members with sexual assault convictions could continue to serve because these convictions are undetected by the chain of command. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report by no later than December 31, 2013, examining: (1) the scope and prevalence of the problem and whether there are existing loopholes and shortcomings in the current system; (2) the frequency and methods by which the military conducts criminal record checks after enlistment or swearing-in to the armed forces; (3) policies that direct members of the armed forces to self-report criminal arrests and convictions to the chain of command, and any penalties associated with failure to do so; and (4) procedures for submitting names of service members convicted of sexual offenses to the National Sex Offender Public Registry. Comprehensive Review of Department of Defense coordination and incorporation of civilian law enforcement best practices in sexual assault prevention and response The civilian law enforcement community has invested significant time and resources in developing proven strategies to effectively respond to sexual crimes. The Department of Justice regularly publishes established best practices incorporating the experience of thousands of federal, state, and local officers as well as academic experts. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the Department of Defense's current policies and procedures regarding sexual assault prevention and response to identify ways to better incorporate civilian law enforcement best practices, particularly regarding training, investigation, and prosecution of sexual crimes. Department of Defense child development center personnel The committee commends the Secretary of Defense, following troublesome allegations of abuse at two Army Child Development Centers, for directing a Department-wide audit of all Department of Defense (DOD) providers who have regular contact with children in DOD child development, school age care, and youth programs, and a comprehensive review and evaluation by each of the military services of the actual background check documentation on file for each individual, employee, and volunteer for compliance by the appropriate authorities in accordance with applicable DOD and service policies. However, the committee has yet to see the results of that review. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report by no later than October 1, 2013, examining: (1) any changes to DOD child development center hiring or personnel practices the Secretary determines are necessary based on the review; (2) steps DOD is taking to implement any necessary changes; (3) a description of the hiring practices at DOD child development centers, to include criminal background checks, credential verification procedures, and interview processes; and (4) an assessment of the contract with Child Care Aware of America (formerly known as the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies) regarding hiring and termination procedures and referrals. Department of Defense reports on sexual assault The committee is concerned with the use of the imprecise terms ``sexual assault'' and ``unwanted sexual contact'' to present statistics on the number of incidences of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and other unwanted sexual acts perpetrated against members of the military that are reported in both the annual Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) report on sexual assaults in the military and the Armed Forces Workplace and Gender Relations Survey (WGRS). The 2012 SAPRO report notes that there were 3,374 reports of sexual assault in fiscal year 2012, but defines the term ``sexual assault'' as ``a range of crimes, including rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, nonconsensual sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses.'' In the Uniform Code of Military Justice, sexual assault is a specific serious offense that carries a possible sentence of up to 30 years confinement, but the annual SAPRO report uses the term sexual assault to refer to the range of sexual offenses. Similarly, the WGRS measured the incidences of ``unwanted sexual contact'', defined as ``intentional sexual contact that was against a person's will or which occurred when the person did not or could not consent'', finding that 6.1 percent of female respondents and 1.2 percent of male respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012. The Department then used these figures to estimate that 26,000 incidences of unwanted sexual contact occurred in 2012, but provided no numbers on the estimated number of rapes, sexual assaults, and other unwanted sexual acts that occurred. Using the imprecise terms ``sexual assault'' and ``unwanted sexual contact'' to refer to a range of sexual offenses creates confusion about the types of unwanted sexual acts that are being perpetrated against members of the military. To address this issue, the committee directs the Department to modify the language used in the annual SAPRO report and the WGRS to clearly report the number of instances of each type of unwanted sexual act, to include rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit those acts. General and flag officer billets The committee recommends that, in concert with any plans to streamline the Department of Defense command, management, and headquarters support staff organizations, the Secretary of Defense develop a plan to ensure that the number of general and flag officer billets are adjusted appropriately to achieve a proper ratio relative to end strength and complies with guidance in section 525, title 10, United States Code. Medical management of sexual assault cases The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in a memorandum dated April 15, 2013, provided Department of Defense (DOD) guidance to each of the services on medical management of sexual assault cases based on the revision to DOD Instruction 6495.02, ``Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures,'' to include provision of standardized, timely, and comprehensive medical care. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than February 1, 2014 outlining the Department's plan to ensure that health care providers are appropriately trained to manage the acute and long-term health needs of victims of sexual assault, accredited as necessary to properly handle evidence collected from victims of sexual assault, and to ensure that these trained health care providers are located in military treatment facilities based on the Department's projection of needs. Military dependent suicides The committee remains extremely troubled by the numbers of suicides in each of the services in both the active duty and the reserve components, and has recently been informed by the National Military Family Association and other military family advocacy groups that anecdotal reports indicate the number of suicides committed by dependents of service members is increasing. However, the committee notes that the Department of Defense does not currently track the suicides of military family members. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report no later than February 1, 2014, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the Department's current capabilities to track the suicides of military dependents of both active duty and reserve component members, the feasibility and advisability of tracking such suicides, a description of any impediments to the ability to track suicides by military family members, and a description of current resiliency programs provided to family members by each of the services. Prohibition of sale of sexually explicit material The committee notes that section 2495b(a) of title 10, United States Code, prohibits the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on Department of Defense property. The committee has been made aware that despite this prohibition, sexually explicit material remains available for sale on certain Department of Defense premises. The committee is concerned about the impact this material may have on the health and wellness of military service members and their families. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the service chiefs, to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, that outlines the Department's efforts to comply with the statutory prohibition. Report to Congress on the implementation of the recommendations made by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission The Military Leadership Diversity Commission established in section 596 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) made recommendations for improving diversity within the armed forces after conducting a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the armed forces. It has been 2 years since the Commission made these recommendations. The committee continues to be interested in increasing diversity in the armed forces and the services' progress in implementing the Commission's recommendations. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the services' progress in implementing the Commission's recommendations and to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on that assessment by December 31, 2013. Report on whereabouts of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl Not later than September 30, 2013, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees an unclassified report, with a classified annex, regarding the status of the search for U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who was captured by the Taliban on June 30, 2009, in Paktika Province in eastern Afghanistan. The report should include Sergeant Bergdahl's suspected whereabouts, his likely captors, and what efforts are being made to find and recover him. Retention, career progression, and promotion opportunities for female members of the Armed Forces The committee notes and is encouraged by the efforts of the Department of Defense to expand service opportunities for women in the military. In February, the Secretary of Defense rescinded the ground-combat exclusion policy and required that the services open all positions to service by women by January 1, 2016, or request an exception to policy by that date to keep certain positions closed, an exception that must be approved by the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Department is moving toward an assignment system that is gender-neutral and performance-based, and the committee supports that effort and encourages the Department to continue to work toward full integration of women in all military occupations to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with military capabilities required for our Nation's defense. Even with the increasing service opportunities for women, however, the committee remains concerned that women may not always be afforded the maximum opportunity to serve a full career. The committee is particularly interested in addressing the balance between career and personal goals of all service members--both men and women--and how the ability of a service member to meet his or her personal goals may impact a decision to remain in military service, while being mindful of the military mission and the core need for all service members to be fully trained, ready, and available for deployment. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report by no later than December 31, 2013, examining: (1) retention rates and career progression opportunities for female service members; (2) causes of voluntary mid-career separations, especially those related to childbirth, to include disparities in service policies on postpartum leave, deferral from deployment, and service member accommodation for infant nursing; and (3) how the Department might better accommodate service members in a manner consistent with military necessity and without degrading unit readiness, to include consideration of wider use of temporary assignments to the reserve components or other career intermission programs as a way to allow service members to pursue personal or family goals while maintaining a commitment to a full military career. Sexual assault first responder training The committee continues to be concerned with sexual assaults in the military. The effect on good order and discipline of a unit is immeasurable. It ruins the trust that individuals have in the institution. One of the aspects that is vital in order to hold confidence in the reporting system for sexual assaults is to ensure that the sexual assault response coordinators, victim advocates, health care personnel, law enforcement personnel, judge advocates, and chaplains are trained on topics to include available medical and mental health treatment options. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from January 2013 indicates that some first responders interviewed were unsure of the health care services available to sexual assault victims at their respective locations. The GAO also reported that sexual assault response coordinators, victim advocates, and health care personnel differed in their understanding of where to take sexual assault victims for forensic examinations. Given that the quality of this evidence diminishes as the period of time from the actual assault increases, this could become a serious issue. The committee understands and appreciates that the Department is focusing additional resources to increase the numbers of first responders. This is a positive step. However, it is also important that first responders thoroughly understand the options available in general as well as at their specific duty location. Therefore, the committee directs the secretaries of each of the military departments to submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days of enactment of this Act with details on how each service will ensure that first responders are adequately trained to be able to deal with sexual assault victims. The report should also indicate how each service will keep track and enforce service specific refresher training requirements. By December 1, 2013, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees indicating the number of first responders who should have had either initial or refresher training during the fiscal year and how many actually completed this required training. The statistics should be broken out by service. Suicide prevention screening The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense (DOD) and each of the military services have made suicide prevention a priority. In addition, Congress has attempted to enhance DOD efforts to address military suicides. Even though military suicide rates are lower than comparable civilian suicide rates, work must be done in the area of early detection of mental health conditions and suicide risk. The committee notes that many of the existing programs designed for suicide prevention and screening of service members for mental health issues are linked to the deployment cycle. Yet, DOD Suicide Event Reports from recent years indicate that less than half of the service members who have committed suicide had deployed, and only a small number were involved with direct combat. The committee remains committed to exploring new means to identify mental health concerns and prevent suicides, and expects the Department to continually monitor best practices in other government agencies, academia, and the private sector in order to recognize when a service member may need psychological help. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with each of the military services and the reserve component, to assess the feasibility and advisability of utilizing innovative tools to screen service members for mental health conditions and risk of suicide, and to submit a report not later than February 1, 2014, that includes the following elements: (1) current ways in which each of the services and reserve components screen service members for mental health conditions; (2) an assessment of utilizing a computerized adaptive test during a service member's annual physical health assessment; (3) an assessment of incorporating input through a computerized survey from a service member's first-line supervisor with regard to any behavioral changes observed in the service member; (4) an assessment of analyzing the wellness of a service member utilizing publicly available data to develop predictive analytical models that may identify individuals that could be more susceptible to suicide; (5) a description of how a pilot program to evaluate these new screening tools could be designed in a manner consistent with medical testing procedures and ethical and privacy requirements; and (6) a description of any other innovative methods to enable early identification of mental health conditions or risk of suicide that the Department has recently considered and the reasons why the Department decided not to utilize those methods. U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and Families Initiatives The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) testified before the committee that ``USSOCOM must ensure our SOF [Special Operations Force] warriors and their families are properly cared for and that we work to help them reduce the stress they face related to high operation tempos. Difficulty also occurs as forces reconnect and reintegrate into garrison and family activities. The Department of Defense provides preventive and responsive counseling, medical, psychological, and rehabilitative care to institutionalize the resiliency of our SOF warriors and their families.'' The committee applauds USSOCOM for its focus on the support and resiliency of SOF and their families through various initiatives, including human performance, personnel tempo, and family programs. The committee also supports the decision of the Commander of USSOCOM to use special operations-peculiar, or Major Force Program-11, funds to augment family support programs provided by the services to meet the unique needs of the SOF families when there is a ``clear and demonstrable connection between the services provided and the combat readiness of the service member.'' According to USSOCOM, ``while the services offer a host of excellent family support programs, there are aspects of SOF that necessitate innovations and the expansion of programs that are not common to the general purpose forces . . . Currently, many of the family programs sponsored by the services are limited in scope, and are centric to the sponsoring service. Despite a recent emphasis by the services to bolster family support programs, we still find that there is limited access to some services and a dearth of programs that adequately account for the unique needs of the SOF community.'' The committee believes the services have a responsibility to provide appropriate family readiness support to all service members and their families, including the SOF community. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Commander of USSOCOM, to submit a report not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act that, at a minimum: (1) describes any family support requirements that are unique to the SOF community; (2) offers an analysis of support provided by the services to address these unique requirements; (3) identifies any gaps in family support provided by the services to the SOF community; (4) provides recommended actions for addressing identified gaps; and (5) relates any other matters deemed appropriate by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness or the Commander of USSOCOM. Veteran unemployment The committee is concerned about the high rate of unemployment that persists for our youngest veterans. The unemployment rate also impacts the Department of Defense budget. Over the past 10 years, the Department of Defense expended more than $6.0 billion in unemployment compensation for veterans. The Departments of Defense and Labor should review and place emphasis on improving the management and oversight associated with the veteran unemployment compensation program and payments. In addition to the unemployment compensation issue, both veterans and prospective employers have brought to our attention that there is no single portal for veterans to find jobs, and employers to post jobs. There are numerous redundant websites and portals managed by federal agencies to provide employment services to veterans. As such, the committee strongly urges the Departments of Labor, Defense, and Veterans Affairs to continue the process of streamlining existing employment portals into a consolidated portal. TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances Fiscal year 2014 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an across-the-board pay raise for members of the uniformed services of 1 percent effective January 1, 2014. Repeal of authority relating to commencement of basic pay for members of the National Guard called into Federal service for less than 30 days (sec. 602) The committee recommends a provision that would repeal subsection (c) of section 204 of title 37, United States Code, to remove the existing limitation on when members of the National Guard are entitled to receive basic pay when called into federal service for a period of 30 days or less. Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603) 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, and income replacement for reserve component members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for active duty service. One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612) The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties. One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers (sec. 613) The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear- qualified officers extending period of active service, the nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in health professions. The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned to high priority units. One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus, the accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between armed forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates. Correction of citation for extension of reimbursement authority for travel expenses for inactive-duty training outside of normal commuting distance and additional one-year extension (sec. 616) The committee recommends a provision that would correct an erroneous citation in section 611(7) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) that extended authority to pay travel expenses for certain inactive-duty training outside of normal commuting distances. The provision would further extend the authority to December 31, 2014. Expansion to all reserve components of stipend for registered nurses in critical specialties under health professions stipend program (sec. 617) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 16201(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize payment of the health professions stipend to a nurse enrolled in an accredited program of nursing in a specialty designated as critical by the Secretary of Defense who is eligible for appointment as a Reserve officer in any of the reserve components. Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances Technical and standardizing amendments to Department of Defense travel and transportation authorities in connection with reform of such authorities (sec. 631) The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1040, 1074i, 1482, and 1491 of title 10, United States Code, and sections 451 and 453 of title 37, United States Code, to make technical changes to those sections to conform with the travel consolidation reform enacted in sections 631 and 632 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The provision would also repeal sections 1036, 1053a, and 2634 of title 10, United States Code, as superseded. Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits Clarification of prevention of retired pay inversion in the case of members whose retired pay is computed using high-three (sec. 641) The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical amendment to section 1401a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that certain provisions of subsection (f) of that section do not apply to the computation of retired pay of members who first entered active duty on or after September 8, 1980. Effect on division of retired pay of election to receive combat-related special compensation after previous election to receive concurrent retirement and disability compensation (sec. 642) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the effect on prior payments of an election to receive combat- related special compensation after a previous election to receive concurrent retirement and disability compensation was made relative to the division of retired pay under section 1408 of title 10, United States Code. Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support (sec. 643) The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 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. Periodic notice to members of the Ready Reserve on early retirement credit earned for significant periods of active Federal status or active duty (sec. 644) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, to require the service secretaries to provide periodic notice to reserve component members of any early retirement credit they have earned for service described in that section by such means as the secretary concerned considers appropriate. Preservation of retiree dependent status for certain dependents upon death or permanent incapacitation of the retired member on whom dependent status is based (sec. 645) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1060b of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that no further certification of a dependent for financial support shall be required or carried out in the case of a dependent who has been granted a permanent identification card by reason of permanent disability when the member or retiree providing the basis for dependency dies or becomes permanently incapacitated. Subtitle E--Military Lending Matters Enhanced role for the Department of Justice under the Military Lending Act (sec. 661) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to provide civil enforcement authority over the Military Lending Act to the Department of Justice. Subtitle F--Other Matters Authority to provide certain expenses for care and disposition of human remains that were retained by the Department of Defense for forensic pathology investigation (sec. 671) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the payment of certain expenses for the care and disposition of human remains retained by a service secretary pursuant to a forensic pathology investigation by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner under section 1471 of title 10, United States Code. Extension of ongoing pilot programs under temporary Army incentive to provide additional recruitment incentives (sec. 672) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 681 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to continue through December 31, 2015, any pilot program carried out under that section that was ongoing as of December 31, 2012. TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS Subtitle B--Health Care Administration Pilot program on increased collection of third-party reimbursements for health care services provided in military medical treatment facilities (sec. 711) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the service secretaries, to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using commercially available enhanced recovery practices for medical payment collection at military treatment facilities. The provision would also require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the pilot program not later than 180 days after completion of the program. The committee is concerned that the lack of an effective collection process in each of the services has resulted in lost reimbursement to the government for medical services rendered. While the committee understands that the Department of Defense is currently exploring options to outsource third party collections, the committee believes that such action has been delayed. Sense of Senate on implementation of integrated electronic health records for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 712) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of the Senate that: despite years of effort and the expenditure of significant resources, full electronic interoperability between the health record systems of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs has not yet been achieved; the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, should fully staff the Interagency Program Office and establish challenging, but achievable, deadlines for development and implementation of measures and goals for electronic health record interoperability; and the Interagency Program Office should establish a secure, remote, network-accessible computer storage system. Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters Report on provision of advanced prosthetics and orthotics to members of the Armed Forces and veterans (sec. 721) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the plans of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that the most clinically appropriate prosthetics and orthotics are made available to injured service members and veterans using technological advances as appropriate. Items of Special Interest Autism spectrum disorder services The committee commends the Department of Defense for its continued efforts to ensure that military families have access to appropriate autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, intervention, and treatment services. The committee expects the Department to continue to assist eligible autistic beneficiaries to receive effective, evidence-based intervention and treatment approaches, and to ensure the provision of such services for autistic dependents of service members living in rural or underserved communities. Education and training of the acquisition workforce of the TRICARE Management Activity The Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) released a report on May 1, 2013, titled, ``TRICARE Management Activity Needs to Improve Oversight of Acquisition Workforce.'' The DOD IG audit found that acquisition personnel of the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) ``did not have required certifications for their functional areas, accurate position descriptions for their assigned duties, or proper training.'' Additionally, the DOD IG discovered that the Component Acquisition Executive ``did not have procedures to adequately monitor the acquisition workforce and did not place the required emphasis on the identification, development, training, and assignment of acquisition workforce personnel.'' The committee notes that in the DOD IG's view, these deficiencies placed the TMA at ``increased risk for fraud, waste and abuse.'' While the TMA has agreed with and worked to address the DOD IG's findings and recommendations, the committee remains extremely concerned about the findings in the DOD IG's report. The committee believes that with the significant number of high value contracts awarded by the TMA--over $11.0 billion in fiscal year 2012 alone--the Department of Defense must ensure that the TMA's acquisition management process meets workforce training and certification requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on the actions the Department is taking to correct the education and training challenges facing the TRICARE acquisition workforce. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild traumatic brain injury The committee remains extremely concerned about the effects of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on our service members and veterans, as TBI is a signature wound of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) reports that there were over 266,000 TBI cases in service members, both active and reserve component, from 2000 through 2012. The committee applauds DOD for its significant investment in TBI research with a focus on development of diagnostic tools and evidence-based care protocols, and understands that DOD is currently conducting three randomized, placebo-controlled pilot studies to determine the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for alleviating symptoms following mild TBI in military personnel. The committee expects that these pilot studies will inform the Department about the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild TBI. 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 within 180 days of completion of the pilot studies that describes the methodology, results, and conclusions of the studies. If hyperbaric oxygen therapy is determined to be effective, the report should address any changes in policy or legislation that may be needed regarding the provision of hyperbaric oxygen services to patients with mild TBI. Mental health counselors for service members, veterans, and their families The committee recognizes that many years of combat operations have caused service members in both the active and reserve components to experience increased exposure to unique and significant stressors. Additionally, service members and their families face daily stress in every phase of military life and as they transition to veteran status. The committee believes that mental health counseling needs of service members, veterans, and their families will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a joint report within 270 days of the enactment of this Act that describes a coordinated, unified plan to ensure adequate mental health counseling resources to address the long-term needs of all members of the armed forces, veterans, and their families. In developing the plan and report, the committee expects the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to consider all available types of trained counseling providers, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, chaplains, and other counseling professionals, as appropriate. The report shall also include a comprehensive staffing plan to ensure an appropriate alignment of mental health resources and needs. Ribonucleic acid research The committee notes with concern that service members are hospitalized more often for infectious diseases than service members who are wounded in combat, and commends the Department of Defense for its ongoing efforts to address these diseases. Therefore, the committee supports Department of Defense investment to further improve prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for service members from rare and infectious viral, bacterial, immune, and neurological diseases through research initiatives such as ribonucleic acid-based research addressing proteins. TRICARE appeals process The committee believes that a fundamental right of TRICARE beneficiaries is a fair and efficient process for resolving disputes with the TRICARE program. The committee notes that the TRICARE appeals process is a multi-level sequential process that allows beneficiaries to request reconsideration from the managed care support contractor, file an appeal with the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), and finally, request an independent hearing if they dispute either a medical necessity determination or a factual determination made in their case. If a case dispute moves to the final stage of the appeals process, a hearing officer examines the available evidence and issues a recommended decision on the case. The committee has learned that the Director of the TMA or their designee, after consideration of a hearing officer's recommended decision, may unilaterally issue a final decision that overturns the independent hearing officer's recommendation. Advocacy groups have informed the committee that beneficiaries who have pursued the full range of options in the appeals process and received a favorable recommendation from the independent hearing officer perceive the process as unfair when the TMA summarily overturns the hearing officer's recommended decision. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, that: (1) describes the current TRICARE appeals process; (2) provides summary data showing the numbers and types of cases submitted by beneficiaries for appeals and hearings over the previous 5 fiscal years; (3) provides data to show both the favorable and unfavorable beneficiary outcomes of all independent hearing cases over the previous 5 fiscal years; (4) describes the average length of time for beneficiaries to obtain a decision from the TMA either from an appeal or a hearing; and (5) provides data on the number of cases in which the Director of the TMA makes a determination different than the recommended decision of the hearing officer to grant a beneficiary appeal. TRICARE emergency department utilization The committee is concerned about the rate of emergency department utilization by TRICARE beneficiaries. The committee understands that families often seek 24-hour emergency department care rather than urgent care clinics to manage after-hours health concerns, and that active-duty family members in transition are a population with a particularly high incidence of emergency room usage. The committee notes that current regulations require that TRICARE Prime beneficiaries seeking care from a provider other than their primary care manager, to include visits to urgent care clinics or facilities, must first obtain a referral. In addition, the average cost of a private sector emergency department visit under TRICARE is $541 per visit, while the average cost for a visit at a private sector urgent care clinic is only $88 per visit. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) is currently conducting a demonstration program that allows TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote U.S. Coast Guard beneficiaries in the southern region four unmanaged urgent care visits per fiscal year without point-of-service charges, and that thus far, the demonstration has shown promising results in reducing emergency room utilization. The committee commends DOD for conducting this demonstration and requests to be kept apprised of its results. In addition, the committee has learned that DOD plans to implement a nurse advice line across the military health system to provide around-the-clock medical information and advice to TRICARE beneficiaries through registered nurses who would guide them to the most appropriate level of care required and assist them with appointment scheduling for conditions that can be treated during routine hours. The committee has been informed that implementation of this advice line has been delayed until at least the fall. The committee believes that current TRICARE policy may incentivize emergency department use by requiring TRICARE Prime beneficiaries to obtain pre-authorizations for urgent care visits, and that this requirement places an administrative burden on families and discourages utilization of less costly urgent care options. While the committee does not want to discourage emergency department use when a true emergency exists, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to revise existing policy to encourage beneficiaries to use urgent care, when appropriate, rather than more expensive emergency department care, and to field its nurse advice line without further delay. Use of simulation technology in medical training The committee appreciates the Department of Defense's work to reduce the use of live animals in combat training courses when appropriate as detailed in the April 2013 ``Report to Congress on the Strategy to Transition to Use of Human-Based Methods for Certain Medical Training.'' The committee commends the Department's interest in the development of simulation technology and shares its commitment to improve and modernize the training of military medical personnel without degradation to combat trauma care. The Department's 2009 ``Final Report on the Use of Live Animals in Medical Education and Training Joint Analysis Team'' projected that validated simulators for many ``high volume/high value'' medical procedures could be developed by 2014. The 2013 report provides an updated timeline indicating that a more realistic timeline for the development and procurement of simulation products would be in 2017 and beyond. In light of this, the committee encourages the Department to expedite wherever practicable the transition to human-based medical training methods and replacement of live animals in combat trauma training courses when appropriate and where modern validated simulators can provide equally effective training that achieves established combat casualty survival rates. TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to multiyear defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec. 801) 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 of authority to acquire products and services produced in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 802) The committee recommends a provision that would extend through December 31, 2015, the authority under section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2399), as amended, to acquire goods and services on a non-competitive basis in certain countries along the Northern Distribution Network transit routes that support U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. The committee understands that the Department of Defense is seeking to extend this authority in part because it anticipates that retrograde operations for U.S. equipment coming out of Afghanistan will extend beyond the conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization International Security Assistance Force mission at the end of 2014. Report on program manager training and experience (sec. 803) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an updated version of the 2009 Department of Defense report titled: ``OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] Study of Program Manager Training and Experience'' not later than 120 days from enactment of this Act. Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs Synchronization of cryptographic systems for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 821) The committee recommends a provision that as part of a milestone B decision for a major defense acquisition program, would require that there be a plan in place to mitigate and account for costs in connection with decertification of cryptographic equipment during production and procurement of the system. The provision includes a waiver based on national security needs. The provision is based on prior experience with the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite System which has had to re-engineer a new cryptographic unit as it was decertified during the production of the satellite system. Assessment of dedicated control system before Milestone B approval of major defense acquisition programs constituting a space program (sec. 822) The committee recommends a provision that would implement a recommendation from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, ``Satellite Control Operations,'' GAO-13-315, concerning the use of dedicated satellite control systems. The provision requires the Department of Defense, as part of its Milestone B decision, to perform a business case analysis on the use of a dedicated control system instead of a shared system. The Department should adhere to the report's recommendation on page 28, that ``[t]he analysis should include a comparison of total dedicated network costs to the incremental cost of integrating onto a shared network.'' Additional responsibility for product support managers for major weapon systems (sec. 823) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2337 of Title 10, United States Code, and section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to provide an assurance that all product support arrangements explicitly state how the arrangement will maximize use of government owned inventory before obtaining inventory from commercial sources. The committee notes that this provision is a result of the recommendations of the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) report dated April 25, 2013, that found the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) did not cost-effectively manage 118 high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) parts valued at $11.1 million while purchasing these parts from AM General, LLC for $17.6 million. The committee notes this occurred because the DLA did not review DLA-owned inventory at key contract decision points to maximize use of its own stock. As a result, the DOD IG identified $9.7 million of excess inventory that could have been used for HMMWV maintenance requirements. The committee notes that this particular DOD IG investigation and report only focused on one particular weapon system at one particular depot. The committee believes there could be an opportunity for greater and similar inventory efficiency across all Department of Defense weapon systems. Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of Defense processes for the acquisition of weapons systems (sec. 824) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Comptroller General of the United States to carry out a comprehensive review of the processes and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapons systems and report upon this review to the congressional defense committees. Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of contractor employees (sec. 841) The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the cap on allowable costs of compensation of contractor employees to an amount consistent with the original legislative cap, adjusted for inflation, and provide for future annual adjustments by reflecting the change in the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for all workers, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) limited the amount of contractor executive compensation allowable for reimbursement under federal contracts to a benchmark based on the median amount of compensation provided to senior executives in large U.S. corporations, as calculated by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP)--then $340,650. Since that time the cap has more than doubled to $763,029 for 2011 and 2012, and is expected to increase to more than $950,000 in 2013. By contrast, if the original cap had been adjusted for inflation it would now be only $487,325. The committee concludes that the growth of the cap by almost $300,000 more than the rate of inflation cannot be justified. At a time when most Americans are seeing little or no increase in their paychecks and budget constraints require the Department of Defense to find efficiencies in all areas, the committee concludes that increases of this magnitude are unsupportable. Implementation by Department of Defense of certain recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States on oversight of pensions offered by Department contractors (sec. 842) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to assign responsibility within the Department for oversight of the reasonableness of the pension plans offered by Department contractors and issue certain guidance on pension benefits. Subtitle D--Other Matters Extension of prohibition on contracting with the enemy in the United States Central Command theater of operations (sec. 861) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81) by striking ``the date that is three years after the date of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``December 31, 2016''. Section 841 allowed the Secretary of Defense to void a contract being performed in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility upon a determination that a foreign entity or individual performing on the contract is directly engaged in hostilities or is substantially supporting forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. Prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 862) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81). Section 841 allows the Secretary of Defense to void a contract being performed in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility upon a determination that a foreign entity or individual performing on the contract is directly engaged in hostilities or is substantially supporting forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. The committee recommends expansion of this provision to all combatant commanders. Upon receiving findings that a person or entity is providing funds to a person or entity who is engaged in hostilities against the United States, the combatant commander would, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the relevant U.S. embassy, determine an appropriate plan of action to mitigate the flow of funds to that person or entity. When that plan of action includes contract actions, the head of contracting activity may terminate or void the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, and restrict future awards to such person or entity. The individual or entity would be provided with post- deprivation due process within 30 days of the receipt of notification. Report on the elimination of improper payments (sec. 863) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to report on the Department's plan to implement the recommendations of the Comptroller General regarding the elimination of improper payments. Items of Special Interest Application of the Berry Amendment to the acquisition of athletic footwear in the Department of Defense Congress passed the Berry Amendment in 1941 to ensure that American soldiers trained and operated, to the greatest extent practicable, in American-made materials. The Berry Amendment specifically covers footwear listed in Federal Supply Class 8430 or 8435. The Army, in 2001, and the Air Force, in 2008, have moved away from issuing athletic footwear to new recruits. Instead, new recruits are given an allowance to acquire athletic footwear from the service exchange. During this period of time, no athletic footwear was available that could have met the requirements of the Berry Amendment without a waiver. It is the committee's understanding that at least one domestic contractor is now producing such footwear. Therefore, the committee directs U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center to undergo a study, to be completed no later than January 1, 2014, of currently available Berry compliant athletic footwear to ascertain whether the Department's needs could be satisfied for new recruits. The committee believes this study should review the various sizes and fit of athletic shoes required, the cost and capacity of products available in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the needs of the Department of Defense (DOD), and whether such footwear could be made. During roughly the last decade, certain procurement incidents and policy changes have created some level of unease with respect to the Berry Amendment's application to not only athletic footwear but also textiles and clothing. As such, the committee directs DOD to submit a publicly releasable report to the congressional defense committees that includes, but not be limited to, any audits or auditing policy, investigations and enforcement, incentives, procurement officer training, and regulatory interpretation guidelines relating to the Department's contracting for textiles and clothing contained in Federal Supply Codes 83 and 84, and athletic footwear listed in Federal Supply Class 8430 and 8435. Clarification pertaining to small business contracting requiring a written justification and approval The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) included a requirement for a written justification and approval (J&A) when awarding applicable federal sole-source contracts in excess of $20.0 million. Ensuring competition in the federal acquisition process is of vital importance to U.S. taxpayers. Section 811 was intended to further this objective; however, the committee understands government contracting officers may inadvertently be deterred from awarding Small Business 8(a) contracts over $20.0 million as a result of confusion over the proper interpretation of section 811. Section 811 does not prohibit the award of sole source contracts of over $20.0 million to those businesses which qualify for the Small Business 8(a) program; however, those contracts do require a J&A. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the actions taken and guidance issued regarding the proper use and implementation of section 811 as it regards Small Business 8(a) contracts. Competition in the development and procurement of training systems Section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111--23) requires the Secretary of Defense to take actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with statutory requirements, contracts for the procurement of major weapon systems are awarded on a competitive basis that gives full consideration to all potential sources. This provision reflects the committee's view that competition, where it is feasible, results in reduced costs and improved contractor performance. The committee believes that competition can have a similar beneficial impact in the area of training systems related to major programs. The committee urges the military departments to actively explore the expanded use of competition as a tool to drive down costs and improve performance in the acquisition of training systems for major programs. Comptroller General of the United States report on best value competitive source selection techniques The Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 allows the use of several best value competitive source selection techniques to meet agency needs. An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one of a number of source selection approaches. Within this best value continuum, the contracting officer (CO) should choose an approach that is most advantageous to the government. The CO may elect to use the lowest price technically acceptable process in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal. By contrast, the CO may elect to use a trade-off process in acquisitions when it may be in the best interest of the government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. In these instances, non-cost evaluation factors, such as technical capabilities, can play an important role in the source selection and trade-offs among price and non-cost factors and allow the Department to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The committee has concerns that the appropriate acquisition process is not always being utilized and therefore directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the sufficiency of the training of the acquisition workforce in the selection of the appropriate acquisition process, and review guidance and directives on the appropriate use of the various acquisition processes. Comptroller General of the United States report on in-line management process for the acquisition process Not later than April 15, 2014, the Comptroller General of the United States shall review the chain of command for acquisition-related functions of the Department of Defense (DOD) and potential changes to that chain of command. The committee understands that the current system is intended to avoid fragmentation, as recommended by the Packard Commission report in 1986, by ensuring that program managers report only to program executive officers, who report only to service acquisition executives, who are in turn subject to the management and supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The committee directs the Comptroller General to consider alternate approaches that would increase the role of the service secretaries and/or the service chiefs in that process, including the ``in-line management process'' recommended by the independent panel assessment accompanying the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), to determine whether or not such changes would be likely to enhance performance and accountability in the acquisition of major defense acquisition programs. The Comptroller General's review should, at a minimum, consider: (1) whether adding the service secretaries and/or chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of command would be likely to increase or reduce fragmentation of authority and accountability in the acquisition system; and (2) whether adding the service secretaries and/or chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of command would or would not be likely to help address the underlying causes of cost, schedule, and performance problems in the acquisition process. In conducting this review, the Comptroller General should also consider the requirements of section 853 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) regarding program manager empowerment and accountability and assess whether adding the service secretaries and/or chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of command would be likely to contribute to or detract from the objectives of that provision. Comptroller General report on process and procedures for identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major development and procurement programs The committee requires the Comptroller General of the United States to review the various processes and procedures for identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major development and procurement programs, report upon their efficiency, and make any recommendations for improvement to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. Report on the configuration steering boards The committee supports the work of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) that has identified mechanisms to ensure ``appropriate trade-offs are made among the life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement quantity objectives, in the establishment and approval of military requirements.'' Specifically, the JROC has issued guidance that ``encourages Program Managers, Program Executive Officers and Component Acquisition Executives, in coordination with the requirements sponsor, to officially require requirements relief, through the appropriate requirements validation authority, where Key Performance Parameters appear out of line with an appropriate cost-benefit analysis.'' The committee, however, continues to have concerns with the growth and change of requirements during a program's life-cycle and believes that such requirements creep can occur at lower levels of the requirements chain. The committee attempted to address this issue in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417) with a provision, section 814, creating Configuration Steering Boards for cost control under major defense acquisition programs. Configuration Steering Boards are responsible for reviewing any proposed changes to program requirements or system configuration that could have the potential to adversely impact program cost or schedule and for recommending changes that have the potential to improve program cost or schedule in a manner consistent with program objectives. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the implementation of section 814 and the extent to which the services have convened Configuration Steering Boards, and the extent to which requirements creep has been successfully addressed. Required goals for future Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness reports The Department of Defense (DOD) is required to achieve audit readiness for its Statement of Business Resources by September 30, 2014 and audit readiness for its full financial statements by September 30, 2017. In order to assist in achieving these legal requirements, DOD has published a Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Guidance. The FIAR Guidance outlines a process of four waves for achieving audit readiness. Each wave has objectives that must be achieved before progressing to the next wave. DOD provides quarterly reports on their progress in meeting their objectives. The committee notes that progress is being made toward these goals; however, the committee also notes that the most recent quarterly report did not contain a specific deadline for completion of the third wave. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to include a deadline for completion of each wave in the next quarterly report, including specific metrics tracking progress on their completion. The committee notes that substantial progress has been made toward meeting these statutory goals; however, the committee remains concerned with the Department's ability to actually achieve them. The Department's financial and related business management systems and control weaknesses have adversely affected its ability to control costs and ensure basic accountability. As the most recent FIAR Guidance points out, ``each of the military departments is larger than most American companies. The Department's annual budget is 56 percent of the Federal Government's discretionary budget and it holds 86 percent of the Federal Government's assets, as reported on the Federal Government's Consolidated Financial Statements. With over $1.0 trillion in combined budgetary resources, producing auditable financial statements requires a strategic, long-term plan that addresses issues in an organized, prioritized, and incremental manner.'' The committee strongly believes, therefore, that producing auditable financial statements is crucial to providing efficient and effective use of limited budgetary resources. TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management Under Secretary of Defense for Management (sec. 901) The committee recommends a provision that would convert the position of Deputy Chief Management Officer to Under Secretary of Defense for Management (USD(M)) and to designate that position as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department of Defense (DOD). 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 DOD Chief Management Officer (DCMO), established an Under Secretary of Defense-level Deputy Chief Management Officer 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 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 FY08 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 also would designate the USD(M) as the Department's CIO and would mandate that the USD(M) exercise authority, direction, and control over the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) of the National Security Agency (NSA). Since the elimination of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD(NII)), the DOD CIO has not been a Senate-confirmed position. In addition, in creating the DCMO position, Congress assigned multiple roles and responsibilities to the DCMO that had been performed by the CIO, which further diluted the clout of the CIO. Also, 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. The current provision would unify roles and functions traditionally performed by the CIO and strengthen the office by making it a Senate-confirmed position again, but without creating an additional position. 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 recommended provision would also amend section 137a(d) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the order of precedence for the Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense would be immediately following the officials serving in the positions of the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, the Under Secretaries of Defense, and the officials serving in positions specified in section 131(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code. Supervision of Command Acquisition Executive of the United States Special Operations Command by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec. 902) The budget request for U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) included approximately $1.6 billion for procurement and $372.7 million for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE). The committee notes that this total represents an increase of more than double in USSOCOM's investment accounts since fiscal year 2001. The Commander of USSOCOM is unique within the Department of Defense as the only combatant commander empowered with authorities for the development and acquisition of special operations-peculiar equipment. Furthermore, the staff of the Commander of USSOCOM includes an acquisition executive that reports solely to the Commander. This is unlike the service acquisition executives of the military departments who are subject to the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) in addition to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the military department concerned. The committee is supportive of USSOCOM's unique acquisition authorities to provide for the special operations-peculiar requirements of its forces, including rapid acquisition of urgently needed capabilities for deployed or deploying special operations forces. Further, the committee notes that the flexibility inherent in these authorities is enormously important to ensuring that our special operations forces can adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of global threats. However, given the significant growth in USSOCOM's budget in recent years and current fiscal pressures, the committee believes additional civilian oversight of USSOCOM investment programs is prudent, particularly the development and acquisition of special operations-peculiar platforms. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would make the USSOCOM Acquisition Executive subject to the direction of the USD(AT&L) for certain acquisition programs. The provision would also require the USD(AT&L) to designate an appropriate official within the Office of the USD(AT&L) to provide such oversight and direction for those programs. The provision would not alter the relationship between the USSOCOM Acquisition Executive and the Commander of USSOCOM and it is not the intent of the committee to delay, unnecessarily impede, or undermine the flexibility of USSOCOM development and acquisition efforts. Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System (sec. 903) The committee recommends a provision that would establish a council to coordinate activities related to national leadership command, control, and communications systems, including the nuclear command, control, and communications system. Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 904) The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would transfer responsibility for administration of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) from the Department of the Navy to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. This change would allow the functions of the ORAP to be aligned more appropriately to address the full range of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes policy issues. Streamlining of Department of Defense management headquarters (sec. 905) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for streamlining Department of Defense management headquarters by reducing the size of staffs, eliminating tiers of management, cutting functions that provide little or no added value, and consolidating overlapping and duplicative program offices. The objective of the required plan is to reduce aggregate spending for management headquarters by not less than $100.0 billion over a 10 fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year 2015. Update of statutory statement of functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to doctrine, training, and education (sec. 906) The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense, that would codify the responsibility of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) by amending section 153 of title 10, United States Code, to reflect the current joint training, doctrine, education, and force development functions that are overseen by the CJCS. Modification of reference to major Department of Defense headquarters activities instruction (sec. 907) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 194(f) of title 10, United States Code, to update the reference to Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, titled ``Major DOD Headquarters Activities.'' Subtitle B--Space Activities Limitation on use of funds for Space Protection Program (sec. 921) The committee has expressed concern with the failure of the Department of Defense (DOD) to keep Congress apprised of its counter space strategy. DOD states that they have developed an integrated effort but the committee remains concerned by the lack of details and resources. Of note, the Air Force's fiscal year 2014 budget provides no funding for counter space programs after fiscal year 2016 in the base budget. The committee recognizes that the establishment of the Space Protection Program is meant to provide a central focus for mission assurance of national space capabilities. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a strategy identifying the near-term and long-term threat to critical national security space systems and the Department's plan for addressing that threat as well as the resources requested in the 5-year budget plan to address those threats. The strategy should also include an assessment of the capabilities and resources other countries have allocated and plan to allocate towards their own offensive counter space capabilities. The strategy shall be due no later than March 1, 2014. On numerous occasions over the past year, the committee has requested that the Department provide a complete copy of the study directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense which led to a significant revision of the Department's counter space strategy. A copy of the study has not yet been provided to the committee, therefore, the committee restricts $10.0 million of the funds appropriated for the Space Protection Program until a copy of the study is provided. Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters Personnel security (sec. 931) The committee recommends a provision that would require major reform of the personnel security clearance investigation, adjudication, and transfer processes to improve security and reduce costs. Specifically, the provision would require: (1) the Director of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation to conduct a comprehensive, comparative analysis of the cost, schedule, and performance of personnel security investigations acquired through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and through components of the Department of Defense (DOD); (2) the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan by October 1, 2014, to acquire investigations through the approach most advantageous to DOD and to determine whether investigations can be improved through the increased utilization of private entities to conduct or provide supporting information for security investigations; (3) the Secretary and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to develop a joint strategy to continuously modernize all aspects of personnel security to lower costs and improve security, and to develop and report annually on metrics that will demonstrate progress in achieving those objectives; (4) the Secretary and the DNI to consider, and allow them to adopt, a series of innovations in security investigation methods and data sources that have been shown to be effective through analysis and/or demonstrations; (5) the Secretary and the DNI to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, reciprocal acceptance of clearances; and (6) development of benchmarks by which to measure the current level of reciprocity in clearance transfers and the costs imposed by delays. DOD transferred the bulk of its security investigations in 2004 to OPM because DOD had accumulated a large backlog of clearance applications and investigations were taking an enormous amount of time which imposed high indirect costs through productivity losses, and (rightly) DOD did not consider security investigations to be a core mission. OPM successfully eliminated the backlog that it inherited and substantially reduced the time it takes to complete investigations. However, personnel security costs have steadily risen and DOD has had little visibility into OPM's cost structure to determine what has been driving those increases. A recent Government Accountability Office report documented OPM's lack of cost transparency and rapidly rising costs. DOD is spending three-quarters of a billion dollars annually on security investigations, and costs have been rising at a rate of 10 percent a year. Multiple intelligence agencies that conduct their own investigations using the same contractors as OPM have achieved savings of up to 50 percent compared to the prices charged by OPM. The pressure on budgets has become severe, while new federal investigative standards that mandate a periodic reinvestigation every 5 years could increase the cost of personnel security dramatically in coming years. In addition, DOD and DNI have been eager to modernize the security investigation process, believing that doing so would actually improve security, reduce the time needed for investigations, and reduce costs. OPM has been slow to address these cost and reform issues. The Army and the National Reconnaissance Office successfully demonstrated, through a pilot program, the gains that can be achieved in efficiency, time, security, and cost by applying modern information technology and exploiting non- traditional information sources. Some intelligence agencies have effectively stopped performing periodic reinvestigations, which has led to a huge new investigatory backlog, and because the government and contract employees of these agencies are past due for reinvestigations, other agencies may refuse to accept their clearances, limiting their employment opportunities through no fault of their own. Finally, industry has expressed concerns about a thicket of bureaucratic obstacles that still make the transfer of clearances between government agencies and departments, and from one contract to another, difficult and time-consuming, ultimately costing taxpayers substantial amounts of money as workers are idled, with their time charged to overhead. The committee believes that the time has come to issue a legislative mandate to force an action that all stakeholders seem to agree is necessary. Reports on clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 932) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE), and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), acting through the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG), and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to assess the potential cost savings and effectiveness improvements from consolidating clandestine human intelligence (HUMINT) collection in the National Clandestine Service managed by the CIA. In conducting the assessment, the Secretary and the DNI should assume that a consolidated HUMINT organization would include a military division supervised by a general or flag officer. In conducting the assessment, CAPE and CAIG would also be required to develop a methodology for comparing the effectiveness of the ratios of support personnel to case officers utilized by the Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA, respectively, and recommend an optimum ratio. The Secretary of Defense and the DNI also would be required to assess whether institutional and procedural safeguards are available to ensure that a consolidated HUMINT organization under the CIA could be relied upon to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense. The provision also would require CAPE separately to assess the performance of the military services in providing, and managing the careers of, qualified case officers for the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS), the effectiveness of DCS in providing cover and other support services to its deployed case officers, and whether the locations to which DCS case officers are deployed provide the opportunity to collect the information required by the Department. Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft (sec. 933) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to direct the modification of the radar system that will be deployed on the Navy's Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Triton aircraft to provide a ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capability that is comparable to the performance of the Air Force Global Hawk Block 40 Multi- Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP). The provision also would require the Secretary to designate the Triton as a joint asset available to support the operational requirements of the unified combatant commands for radar and signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection. The committee understands that the Triton radar could be modified through software additions at a very modest cost to achieve GMTI performance of the same level of quality and capacity as the Block 40 Global Hawk. The Navy plans to procure, over the life of the program, approximately 70 Triton aircraft. The committee believes it would be a serious mistake for the Department of Defense to pass on the opportunity to equip this fleet to support, when needed, the ground forces of the Marine Corps, the Army, and Special Forces with GMTI radar. Similarly, the Navy plans to equip approximately 60 Triton aircraft with a very capable SIGINT suite as a replacement for the EP-3 towards the end of the decade. The EP-3 is a joint asset that is allocated under the Global Force Management Allocation Plan process. The committee believes this capability should be available to support joint requirements. The budget request included $375.2 million in PE 35220N for development of the Triton program. To support the development of the software modifications to the Triton radar mandated in the committee provision, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million. Plan for transfer of Air Force C-12 Liberty Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 934) The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop and carry out a plan to conduct the orderly transfer of the Air Force C-12 Liberty intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft to the Army and to the U.S. Special Operations Command or one of its components. The plan will ensure there is no impact to ongoing ISR operations in Afghanistan and around the world. The provision would also prohibit the Army from acquiring additional versions of its C-12 ISR system, the Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) in fiscal year 2014. In another section of this report, the committee recommends no authorization for the procurement of four EMARSS aircraft, but authorizes the same amount to convert transferred Air Force C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration. The Air Force currently possesses 41 C-12 Liberty ISR aircraft. These aircraft are currently assigned to Air Combat Command and provide ISR and direct support to ground forces, including Special Operations Forces. The Army has been pursuing an Aerial ISR Strategy 2020 which includes a fleet of 24 manned aerial ISR aircraft based on the C-12 (Beechcraft 350)-- procuring 12 new EMARSS aircraft and recapitalizing 12 existing Medium Altitude Multi-Intelligence aircraft. These aircraft will replace the legacy Guardrail systems resulting in the elimination or retirement of 58 manned ISR platforms. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), this committee recommended transferring Air Force C-12 Liberty ISR aircraft to the Army but relented at the insistence of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the leadership of the Air Force that the Air Force was committed to the mission of providing ISR support for ground forces. However, the attempted transfer of these aircraft by the Air Force to the National Guard prompted the Army to restart the EMARSS program. The committee remains convinced that the Department of Defense requires only one fleet of C-12-based ISR aircraft to provide tactical support to ground forces in a permissive air defense environment and looks forward to reviewing the Secretary of Defense's plan on transfer and use of its C-12 ISR aircraft. Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters Authorities, capabilities, and oversight of United States Cyber Command (sec. 941) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to determine whether U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) requires signals intelligence (SIGINT) operational tasking authority (SOTA) as an inherent and essential aspect of its operational missions. If the Secretary determines that CYBERCOM needs SOTA to perform its missions, including military cyber operations such as maneuvering outside of national U.S. networks, operational preparation of the environment, development of targeting packages, and accessing databases held by the National Security Agency (NSA), the Secretary would delegate such authority to CYBERCOM in the Secretary's role as the President's Executive Agent for SIGINT under Executive Order 12333. CYBERCOM, like elements of the intelligence community, requires the ability to access the global Internet for operational purposes without necessarily exposing those accesses to potential adversaries. In conflict situations, CYBERCOM may be called upon to take actions where it is not possible or necessary to act with stealth, and remain unnoticed and untraced. CYBERCOM, as a military organization, sometimes may be required to rapidly overwhelm military targets by massed action--the very antithesis of non-disruptive activity. Similarly, CYBERCOM's offensive military forces may need to train and exercise capabilities to defeat targets not only by stealthy infiltration but by ensuring that they make use of a broad range of strategies, including by employing the cyber equivalent of sudden and overwhelming force. CYBERCOM's personnel and units may need capabilities, and training, to rapidly plan and execute potentially large-scale operations against new or unexpected targets where disruption or destruction is paramount, not stealth. Test ranges may be necessary, since CYBERCOM's forces cannot prepare for this type of operation out on the global Internet. The committee expects the Secretary to take these unique CYBERCOM requirements--many of which differ from the requirements of the intelligence community--into consideration in making the determination required by this section. The provision recommended by the committee would require the Secretary to designate a Senate-confirmed official within the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy with the responsibility for oversight, and resource management of offensive cyber forces, including the national mission teams that will defend the nation by operating external to U.S. networks. The committee is concerned that oversight of CYBERCOM and the cyber mission of the Department of Defense (DOD) is fragmented and weak. In part, this is unavoidable, inasmuch as cyber operations affect every segment of the Department, making clear lines of jurisdiction and responsibility impossible to draw. One organization is in charge of defensive cybersecurity, another for cyber intelligence missions, others for technology, architectures, and acquisition, and another for policy and operational considerations. Oversight is further complicated by the varied organizational structures that the military services apply to cyber missions. In responding to the Secretary of Defense's direction to create a large number of cyber mission teams to conduct national cyber defense, support the combatant commands, and defend DOD networks, the services are struggling to classify the personnel who will man these teams. Some of the services are building offensive forces within existing service cryptologic organizations and commands, and intend to fund all such personnel under the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), while others fund and manage such personnel as they would any other warfighter. Personnel that will be assigned to teams that will ``hunt'' for adversaries in the defense of DOD networks are likely to be funded under the Information Systems Security Program. Finally, the provision would require that the Secretary initiate the process of creating sophisticated training facilities and capabilities for cyber personnel in the military services and at CYBERCOM, independently of the intelligence community. The committee does not believe that offensive military cyber forces should be funded under the MIP. The committee is also concerned that the culture and outlook of signals intelligence collection, which is already overly dominant in this mission area, may be inappropriate to many cyber missions. Joint software assurance center for the Department of Defense (sec. 942) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a joint software assurance center to serve as a resource for securing the software acquired, developed, maintained, and used in the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision would require the Secretary to consider whether an existing center could fulfill the purposes of the required center. The provision would require the Secretary, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to issue a charter for the center that lays out: (1) the center's role in supporting program offices in implementing DOD's supply chain risk management strategy and policies; (2) the center's expertise and capabilities; (3) the center's management, in coordination with the Center for Assured Software (CAS) of the National Security Agency, of a research and development program to improve the capability of automated software analysis tools; and (4) the center's management of the procurement and distribution of enterprise licenses for such analysis tools. The provision also would require the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, coincident with the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2016, on funding and management of the center, including a recommendation for the placement of the center organizationally within the Department. A report to Congress in October 2011 from the Secretary of Defense on a strategy for assuring the security of DOD software and software-based applications indicated that a software assurance center would be useful to implement DOD's Trusted Systems and Networks strategy. The report further stated that an internal DOD study concluded that software vulnerability detection should be ``organized centrally'' to assure ``a consistent response, coherent direction, and comprehensive coverage'' at least until software assurance expertise and resources are developed and diffused across the Department. The committee believes that a software assurance center would best serve as the anchor point for that ``centrally organized'' effort, and the implementation of section 933 of the National Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The mission of the center would be to educate, train, equip, and assist program management offices to achieve security in software developments and acquisitions. These services would require expertise in software assurance requirements, design, standards, best practices, technology and tools for code analysis, penetration testing, training, system certifications, and vulnerability remediation. Section 933 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated the use of automated vulnerability analysis tools during the entire lifecycle of critical DOD systems. A software assurance center would be a logical choice for managing the purchase and distribution of licenses for commercial automated code analysis tools, and for managing the development of improvements to code analysis tools. Supervision of the acquisition of cloud computing capabilities for intelligence analysis (sec. 943) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, to supervise the development and implementation of plans for the acquisition of cloud computing capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data analysis in the military services and defense agencies. The provision would specifically require plans for meeting requirements for interoperability and attribute-based access controls across the ISR cloud systems of DOD components, as well as for cross-domain enterprise-wide discovery and correlation of data stored in cloud and non-cloud databases, relational and non-relational databases, and any future hybrid or consolidated databases that have features and capabilities of both relational and non-relational databases. In addition, the provision would require these plans to be integrated with the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise (DI2E), the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise (ICITE). This provision is based in part on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report required by the House Report which accompanied H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). That report documented that DOD lacks guidance and standards governing the development of the services' cloud initiatives for analyzing ISR data and for integrating these activities with the DI2E, JIE, and ICITE. GAO also noted that, with the exception of the Army, the services have not yet developed strategies and implementation plans for their ISR clouds. Cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense weapons systems and tactical communications systems (sec. 944) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, to report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees on the capability of each military service to operate in a hostile cyber environment. The report would be required to provide an assessment of the cyber threats to major weapons systems and tactical communications systems that could emerge within the next 5 years; an assessment of the cyber vulnerabilities of major weapons systems and tactical communications systems; a description of the current strategy to defend against battlefield cyber attacks; and an estimate of the costs to correct the vulnerabilities in the future. The Department of Defense (DOD) has layered defenses for its desktop computers, laptops, servers, data centers, and backbone networks, including endpoint or host-based defensive systems, such as the Host-Based Security System (HBSS). Tactical networks, and the software elements of battlefield weapons systems, lack such protections. Such tactical systems are less readily accessible than the main DOD networks and computing equipment, and utilize more custom software, but in principle, they can be accessed and subverted through wireless communications means or through other wireless apertures, test equipment or other removable media, and through supply chain compromise. In important respects, battlefield cyber warfare is closely related to traditional electronic warfare. It is critically important for DOD to prepare for this type of conflict. As highlighted in a January 2013 report by the Defense Science Board, DOD's dependence upon networked systems and components serves as ``a magnet to U.S. opponents'' and if left unaddressed, threatens our core warfighting capabilities. Every critical system from ground vehicle electronic systems and next generation aircraft to satellites and missile defense systems must be assessed to ensure that critical warfighting capabilities are not undermined and that the same level of emphasis placed on developmental and operational security in the physical domain be adequately addressed and applied in the cyber domain. Strategy on use of the reserve components of the Armed Forces to support Department of Defense cyber missions (sec. 945) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for using the reserve components of the armed forces to support the cyber missions of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including in support of civil authorities, and to report to the congressional defense committees on this strategy within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. CYBERCOM was established in 2009. While it has had large numbers of personnel assigned to execute its defensive mission to protect Department of Defense (DOD) networks, the number of qualified personnel available for offensive missions, including offensive operations in support of defensive missions, has been negligible. CYBERCOM has now begun defining the numbers of positions and their associated specific skills, and the number of units into which those positions would be grouped, that are initially required to defend the Nation against major cyber attack, support the combatant commanders, and actively defend DOD networks. The Secretary recently issued a directive to the services to undertake vigorous action to generate large numbers of such skilled cyber operators to meet these CYBERCOM manning requirements (over the next 4 years). The services are still in the early stages of responding to the Secretary's direction. DOD is therefore only at the beginning stages of determining how the reserve components can and should be integrated into the process for providing a total force solution to CYBERCOM's manning requirements. In developing the required strategy, the provision would require the Secretary to: (1) identify the DOD cyber mission requirements that could be discharged by members of the reserve components; (2) in consultation with state Governors, provide means for the states to provide their evaluation of state capabilities and the needs of their states for cyber capabilities that cannot be fulfilled by contracting through the private sector; (3) identify the existing capabilities of the reserve components and the current plans of the military services to utilize them to meet total force resource requirements; (4) assess whether the National Guard when activated in state status can operate under unique and useful authorities to support domestic cyber missions and CYBERCOM requirements; (5) evaluate the ability of the reserve components to attract, retain, manage the careers of, properly train, and organize personnel with substantial cyber technical expertise from the private sector; (6) develop an estimate of the costs of the personnel, infrastructure, training, and operations needed to integrate the reserve components into the total force solution to CYBERCOM's mission requirements; and (7) assess the appropriateness of hiring non-dual status technicians on a part-time basis, who possess appropriate cybersecurity expertise for purposes of assisting the National Guard in protecting critical infrastructure and carrying out cybersecurity missions in defense of the United States homeland. The committee notes that there is a large and diverse array of companies and non-profit organizations in the private sector that employ people with expertise in cybersecurity. These organizations not only can provide services to the states for day-to-day cybersecurity and for crisis and recovery support, but their employees could potentially provide a wealth of talent as members of the reserve components to support CYBERCOM's title 10 missions, including support to civil authorities. While it is not clear that DOD can attract these cyber experts to join the reserve components on a large scale, the potential payoff is so significant that it must be fully assessed. The committee also notes, however, that these private sector resources are not evenly distributed across the country. Rather, they tend to be geographically concentrated. Furthermore, by the inherent virtual nature of cyberspace, the lack of physical proximity to a specific cyber event or network need not be a major barrier to the provision of support and collective effort. These factors may have a significant impact on how reserve component cyber personnel should be organized and situated. Control of the proliferation of cyber weapons (sec. 946) The committee recommends a provision that would require the President to establish an interagency process to develop policy to control the proliferation of cyber weapons through unilateral and cooperative export controls, law enforcement activities, financial means, diplomatic engagement, and other means that the President considers appropriate. The process should involve subject matter experts from across the government, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of State, and the intelligence community. The provision would require the interagency process to produce recommendations within 270 days of the enactment of this Act. In testimony before the committee and in many other settings, executive branch civilian and military leaders have continually pointed to cyber threats as some of the most grave facing our country. Recent examples of such threats include the distributed denial of service attacks directed at U.S. financial institutions and the Shamoon malware cited by former Secretary of Defense Panetta that rendered 30,000 computers useless at Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company. The types of dangerous software used to perpetrate these malicious incidents are actively traded on a global black market, and they are also available in the so-called gray market, through unscrupulous companies. Through these illicit channels, it is possible to procure or even rent sophisticated tools and large-scale infrastructure (such as compromised computers) to subvert computer systems and networks. This thriving marketplace is driving research and development of more advanced cyber capabilities. In order to address these challenges, the provision would require the President to determine the types of malicious software that can and should be controlled through existing export control schemes. This process will require developing definitions and categories for controlled cyber technologies and determining how to address dual-use, lawful intercept, and penetration testing technologies. After determining which types of cyber technologies should be controlled, the process should identify the intelligence, law enforcement, and financial tools that can be applied to control and contain their development, proliferation, and use. However, the approaches developed must also take into account the needs of legitimate cybersecurity professionals to mitigate vulnerabilities, and not stifle innovation in tools and technology that are necessary for national security and the cybersecurity of the Nation. Finally, the provision would require the President to develop a statement of principles regarding U.S. positions on controlling the proliferation of cyber weapons to create new opportunities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation to address this shared threat. Such principles could be leveraged for a multilateral cyber initiative that could build and operationalize a shared consensus on limiting the spread of malicious software, increasing accountability, and creating a foundation for collective action. Integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 947) The committee recommends a provision that would require the President to establish an interagency process to develop an integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace. The provision would require the President to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on this policy within 270 days after the enactment of this Act. The committee has been pressing for a strategy and doctrine for deterring adversaries from attacking the United States and our allies for years. The administration has made some progress in this area, producing some elements of such a strategy, but the depth and breadth of the analysis and explanation of the U.S. posture needs to be significantly improved. Centers of Academic Excellence for Information Assurance matters (sec. 948) The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that Centers of Academic Excellence (CAEs) in Information Assurance do not lose their certification as CAEs in fiscal year 2014 as a result of recent changes in the certification criteria developed by the National Security Agency (NSA). The provision also would require the President, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, to: (1) determine whether information assurance has matured to the point where the Federal Government should no longer serve as the accrediting authority for information assurance programs at institutions of higher education; and (2) based on that determination, reform the current practice of NSA developing the criteria to guide the curricula and certifying the status of the CAEs. The first CAEs for Information Assurance were established more than a decade ago under the direction of officials on the National Security Council staff. There are now approximately 165 CAEs across the country, with partnerships extending to many community colleges. The Department of Defense funds a scholarship-for-service program at these CAEs, as does the National Science Foundation. The guidelines for the curriculum and the criteria for certifying these CAEs were first developed by NSA under the direction of the Committee on National Security Systems. These guidelines and criteria have not been updated since. In 2010, the administration established the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE), pursuant to which they assigned responsibility for Formal Cybersecurity Education to the Secretary of Education and the National Science Foundation. The widely held expectation was that modernization of the CAE guidelines and criteria would issue from the NICE initiative consistent with a Cybersecurity Workforce Framework developed by the National Institute for Standards and Technology. Instead, NSA unilaterally revised the certification criteria by issuing new draft knowledge units and other criteria to which the CAEs would be required to align their curricula. Universities and colleges that were up for renewal of their certifications would have to realign their programs immediately. Many of the CAEs are very concerned about NSA's actions, and perceive that the new knowledge units are unduly focused on the highly technical aspects of information assurance, which, while perhaps appropriate for the specific needs of NSA and the Department of Homeland Security for government employees, are not suited for the broad needs of government (at all levels) and the private sector for cybersecurity professionals. NSA officials maintain that almost all current CAEs will be able to qualify under the new guidelines without hardship or significant expense if they choose to do so. However, a significant number of the CAEs do not agree. The committee's provision would provide time to step back and address fundamental issues. It would also require a determination whether information assurance programs are now sufficiently mature to be accredited in the same manner as other established academic disciplines. Accreditation is normally managed by the private sector in a peer-driven process involving institutions and constituencies that serve and are served by the discipline being taught. Since the CAEs were created over a decade ago, reliance on the Internet has become universal and the cyber threat is ubiquitous, affecting the entire Nation. There are now strong constituencies throughout government and industry, and peer institutions in academia and the private sector that have vital interests in the curriculum and educational capabilities in information assurance in the Nation's institutes of higher education. They not only deserve a seat at the table, but they have valuable knowledge and experience to impart. The committee notes that a large number of federal departments have significant cybersecurity education initiatives underway, and all of government has a vital interest in cybersecurity. NSA has unique expertise, to be sure, but no longer a monopoly. At a minimum, a government- wide, coordinated process should be used to establish curricula and criteria for designation for the CAEs. It is also possible that, after reviewing the matter, the President and academia itself could decide that the time has come for information assurance to become a recognized academic discipline with an independent accreditation body and process. While the President is making these decisions and establishing a broader and more peer- and constituency-driven accreditation process, the committee believes that the status quo for the CAEs should be maintained. Items of Special Interest Assessment of multi-year procurement of GPS III satellites In an effort to reduce acquisition costs, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the feasibility and advisability of multi-year procurement of the GPS III satellite system under existing authorities. The assessment shall be due by February 28, 2014. Assessment of the costs, risks, and benefits of storage on produced satellites For affordability and to ensure manufacturing and production lines are optimized, the Department of Defense (DOD) generally buys satellites in block quantities. However, over the last few decades, data shows that satellites are generally outliving their expected lifetimes. This often times means that fully produced satellites sit in storage for extended periods of time, sometimes more than 5 years. More importantly, it is not fully known to DOD or the development contractor what effect storage will have on the eventual operational lifetime of a satellite. In addition to risk, there are costs associated with extended storage to include battery replacement, additional functional testing, and the need to maintain standing armies of engineers to be on call in the event an anomaly may occur. Stored satellites have also been launched at longer intervals to strategically address the late deliveries of follow on satellite acquisitions. The committee directs the Comptroller General to assess the costs, risks, and benefits of storage on produced satellites. The assessment shall include: (1) an assessment of DOD and contractor data, if any, on the effects that storage has on the operational lifetimes of satellites, to include correlations between years in storage and expected and eventual satellite lifetimes; (2) an identification of the costs associated with satellite storage over the past 5 years as well as anticipated storage costs over the next 5 years; (3) an explanation of the steps DOD has taken, if any, to strategically extend the lifetimes of satellite constellations, while incurring unanticipated storage costs; and (4) the steps that DOD is taking to better understand storage and its overall effects on satellite operational lifetimes; and (5) the strategic benefit of being able to rapidly reconstitute certain satellites, and if storage is the most cost effective means for doing so. The assessment shall be due by April 30, 2014. Core staff of the National Reconnaissance Office The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), while a Department of Defense (DOD) agency, has long been considered a loose cadre of experts loaned from various defense and intelligence agencies. This loaning of experts has positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect of this personnel rotation is the ability to bring new talent with fresh ideas to tackle some of the most challenging problems related to space systems. In fact, DOD personnel who return from a tour at NRO have developed synergies between these two organizations leading to a cadre of space professionals, which this committee believes should be sustained and nurtured by the DOD. Section 912 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) shows the committee's long-standing interest in maintaining a space cadre by requiring biennial reports on the Department's space professionals. The negative aspect of the personnel rotation program is a constantly changing workforce that is loaned to a large agency with no long-term core knowledge base of scientists, engineers, contracting specialists, and legal staff. Such a core group within the NRO can carry forward the corporate knowledge as the majority of the NRO staff rotates to and from their home agencies. Given that a significant portion of staff at the NRO is from DOD, the committee looks forward to exploring the parameters of such a core group of individuals within the NRO in the upcoming fiscal year. Estimated cost to relocate spectrum Testimony before this committee has suggested moving the Department of Defense (DOD) off spectrum below 3 GHz. The committee remains skeptical and concerned with the technical feasibility and risk in such a move. The committee directs DOD to assess the impact on mission and cost of such a proposed move and provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2014. Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle The Secretary of the Air Force has announced an acquisition strategy that involves the procurement of 36 rocket cores over the next 5 years with the availability of an additional 14 cores to be competed for by the incumbent as well as any launch providers that qualify under Air Force new entrant guidelines. The committee understands that as a result of the acquisition strategy, approximately $1.1 billion in cost savings will be achieved with the block buy of 36 cores and the Air Force is to be commended for these cost savings. Further, the committee understands that while the Air Force has completed its New Entrant Strategy, the other major user of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), has not. The committee will want to compare the Air Force and the NRO strategies and to understand what differences there are and why, since both the Air Force and the NRO will use these 14 cores. Furthermore, the committee expects the Director of the NRO to consult with the Air Force on any differences in strategy that significantly deviate from the Air Force approach. The committee's understanding from new entrants is that while they are generally pleased with the strategy, there are still concerns with the EELV Launch Capability (ELC) funding and whether it gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent. The committee will want to understand the nature of the ELC during competition for the 14 cores in addition to the 36 core block buy. The committee will look carefully in the out-years as to the structure of future acquisition strategies and in particular how the ELC will be structured, assuming there are multiple launch providers. Likewise, the committee expects that once a new entrant is certified it will have to establish the acquisition rigor that the current incumbent undergoes--business systems that substantially comply with Department of Defense data requirements and cost accounting standards, including certified cost or price data to protect taxpayers' interest that it is paying a reasonable and appropriate price and Defense Contracting Audit Agency audits to verify and validate contractors' systems and data. Certification by the Air Force must also be closely monitored to ensure technical standards are consistent with the risk level of the mission prior to contract award. Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program The committee continues to believe that improvements to the space situational awareness and space command and control capabilities of the United States are critical, and the Department of Defense has the opportunity to achieve efficiency and cost effectiveness by utilizing, to the maximum extent possible, readily available commercial and government-developed capabilities. The committee fully expects the Air Force to pursue a tailored incremental information technology approach with priority given to transition from the legacy Space Defense Operations Center system by 2014. The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to, when appropriate, fully incorporate existing, mature, commercial technology products in order to replace the legacy system on an accelerated basis and utilize efficient testing and validation methods. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than August 1, 2013, assessing the Air Force's plan of execution for the Increment 2 schedule, based upon available funding. Mainframe computer security The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) operates a large number of mainframe computers to process and store critical Department of Defense (DOD) information. These mainframes are protected by some elements of DOD's layered cybersecurity defenses, but other layers are absent, in part because mainframes have unique features and attack vectors for which standard defense systems and architectures do not apply. However, DISA's position is that these mainframes do not require the same level of attention because they have inherently elevated security, achieved through the rigorous architecture, engineering, access procedures, and programming languages applied to mainframe computing. The committee agrees that mainframe computers have better built-in security, but disagrees that these enhanced security features alone are sufficient to provide the level of protection needed. In addition, the importance of mainframes to DOD's information enterprise makes them an attractive target. According to General Keith Alexander, the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), in testimony before the committee, ``there's more work that needs to be done in protecting the mainframe computers and that portion of the total information infrastructure.'' The committee directs that CYBERCOM and NSA jointly conduct a vulnerability assessment of DOD mainframe computers, and make recommendations to the Chief Information Officer and the Director of DISA for addressing vulnerabilities that may exist, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act. Modernization of Defense Support Program Mobile Ground System The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the Defense Support Program Mobile Ground System for integration into the Space Based Infrared System. The report shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2014. Payload processing services The committee understands that the Air Force has taken steps that may undermine competition for payload processing for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. Given the Air Force's initiatives to instill competition in the EELV program, the committee is concerned that the Air Force has not taken all appropriate steps to encourage competition for payload processing services. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force within 90 days of the enactment of this Act to provide a plan to the congressional defense committees on how the Air Force intends to ensure competition in payload processing services. Report on disaggregation and payload hosting Much has been stated by the Department of Defense on the attributes of disaggregating sensors and hosting these payloads on other satellite systems to potentially reduce cost and increase survivability. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of disaggregating key military space systems and examine whether disaggregation and payload hosting offers either decreased acquisition and life cycle cost and increased survivability of a constellation compared to more traditional approaches such as incremental technological improvements of the existing satellite architecture and the use of block buy or fixed price acquisition strategy. In particular, the GAO is directed to examine these concepts on three systems, the Space Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS), the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite system, and the follow-on defense weather satellite system. There is precedent with the use of SBIRS Highly Elliptical Orbit 1 and 2 on hosted payloads. The report for this effort shall be due by March 31, 2014. Report on Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Command Terminals for airborne platforms There has been much re-scoping of the Family of Advanced Line of Sight Command Terminals (FAB-T). Originally intended for ground, command post (air and ground), as well as the B-2 and B-52 aircraft, the committee understands that the Air Force is now considering only the ground and command post versions of the terminal. If a version of the terminal is proven feasible for the B-2 and B-52 aircraft, the committee directs the Air Force in coordination with U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to provide an assessment of whether the requirement for integrating these terminals into the airframes is still valid and if the Air Force intends to provide a follow-on FAB-T capability for these aircraft and by what timeframe. The assessment shall be due by February 28, 2014 and shall include the views of the Commander of USSTRATCOM. Report on North Korea's ability to develop a functional nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missile In April 2012, North Korea first displayed what appeared to be a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), referred to as the KN-08, which has not yet been flight tested. In December 2012, after more than a decade of efforts to launch a satellite with the Taepo Dong space-launch vehicle (SLV), North Korea succeeded for the first time in placing a satellite in orbit with the Taepo Dong-2 SLV, thus demonstrating success with the development of ballistic missile technology. On February 12, 2013, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its third nuclear test. As Madelyn Creedon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, testified to the committee, ``North Korea's long-range ballistic missile capabilities have advanced rapidly during the last year. The increased pace of this emerging threat required the United States to adapt its homeland defense capabilities . . . . These programs demonstrate North Korea's commitment to develop long-range missile technology that could pose a direct threat to the United States.'' These developments have caused concern that North Korea may be capable of deploying a nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missile. However, to the best of our knowledge, North Korea has never flight tested a full production representative long-range ballistic missile, and has not flight tested the reentry vehicle or associated nuclear warhead technologies. The Department of Defense issued a statement in April 2013 that, ``it would be inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean regime has fully developed and tested'' nuclear weapons capable of being delivered by ballistic missiles. According to the Director of National Intelligence, ``North Korea has not yet demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a nuclear-armed missile.'' North Korea has clearly made substantial progress on long- range ballistic missile technology and on developing nuclear weapons. These are topics of intense interest to the U.S. Intelligence Community, elements of which have been assessing these two aspects of North Korea's capabilities separately. However, there has not yet been an assessment looking at both North Korea's long-range missile and nuclear warhead capabilities to provide an integrated assessment of its ability to produce a working nuclear-armed ICBM. Consequently, the Director of National Intelligence is directed to assess the ability and time frame for North Korea to produce a fully functional long-range ballistic missile armed with a working nuclear warhead. The assessment shall consider the challenges of successfully designing, engineering, and producing a nuclear explosives package that can fit into a re-entry body, capable of withstanding the full flight trajectory of a ballistic missile, with fusing that can arm and detonate the warhead on a target. The assessment should also identify what, if any, capabilities North Korea may have achieved. As part of this assessment, the Director of National Intelligence is to consult with the Department of Energy on the physics and engineering of such a nuclear explosives package that can fit in the reentry body, survive flight trajectory, and the necessary fusing to arm the warhead. The Director's assessment shall reflect the views of the Department of Energy. In the assessment, the Director of National Intelligence shall provide an estimate of North Korea's status on the critical technologies to be developed in the nuclear explosives package, the reentry body, the fuse system, and the estimated timeframe to assemble a complete and fully functional warhead on a long-range ballistic missile system. The assessment shall include any dissenting or minority intelligence community determinations and shall be completed and provided to the congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence committees no later than February 28, 2014. Report on space situational awareness The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to conduct a Gap Analysis on the systems of sensors used for space situational awareness (SSA), evaluating those: currently employed; in procurement; and not yet procured, or in the case of the Space Based Surveillance System, what a future replacement would be to deliver similar capability at a lower cost. For sensors not procured, the Secretary is directed to provide the estimated cost of procurement and the incremental improvement to the SSA architecture. The Secretary is directed to consider non- traditional sensors such as sea-based X-band radar integrated in a net-centric fashion to the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System. The report for this effort shall be due by February 28, 2014. Satellite communications strategy The Secretary of Defense is directed to provide a report detailing a 5-, 10-, and 25-year strategy for using an appropriate mix of Department of Defense (DOD) and commercial satellite bandwidth. The committee believes considerable savings can be achieved by purchasing commercial bandwidth in larger block quantities. However, to date, DOD has been unable to define the appropriate mix between government provided and commercially purchased satellite communications and has relied on more expensive spot market buys. For procuring commercial satellite bandwidth, the Secretary must recognize that long- term or capital leasing of commercial bandwidth typically results in the cost over the life of the lease being net- present valued by the Congressional Budget Office in year one of the lease. For multi-year procurement of satellite bandwidth, issues associated with termination liability will also present up-front costing challenges in year 1. Accordingly, as part of the strategy, the Secretary is directed to consider the use of a capital working fund or other mechanisms for leasing or multi-year procurement of commercial bandwidth. These alternative procurement arrangements should only be used where the use of DOD or other government satellites are not available or is more costly than in the private sector. The report shall be due February 28, 2014. The Government Accountability Office is directed to review the acquisition strategy of the report no later than 90 days after submittal of the report. Satellite control system modernization plan The committee directs the Air Force to develop a long-term plan for modernizing its Satellite Control Network and any future shared satellite control services and capabilities consistent with the second recommendation found on page 28 of the Government Accountability Office report ``Satellite Control Operations'', GAO-13-315. The plan shall be due by April 30, 2014. Space Based Infrared Satellite, GEO 5 and 6 The committee understands that the Air Force intends to procure Space Based Infrared Satellites (SBIRS), GEO 5 and 6 using a block buy, fixed price strategy to reduce costs. Such an acquisition strategy is admirable. However, the committee understands that SBIRS GEO 5 and 6 is to use much the same technology as in earlier versions found in GEO 1 and 2. If such an approach is used, that means that GEO 5 and 6 when launched in the 2020 timeframe will be using, for instance, focal plane technology developed in the 1990s, which is 30 years old. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the technology insertion path for GEO 5 and 6 and whether it is feasible to insert newer focal plane and other technologies into GEO 5 and 6 within a block buy acquisition strategy and the estimated cost. If not feasible, how does the Air force intend to break the ongoing cycle of technology insertion maturity versus risk where the cost to develop next generation satellites becomes cost prohibitive and high risk with long periods of non-recurring engineering. The assessment shall be due by February 28, 2014. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to review the assessment performed by the Air Force within 90 days of submission to the committee. Strategic solid rocket motor industrial base The committee believes that a healthy industrial base for strategic solid rocket motors, including multiple providers, promotes competition, improves vendor performance, and reduces costs. The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to promote and maintain the health and competitiveness of this crucial sector of the industrial base and to make its viability a key consideration in future acquisition decisions involving Minuteman III sustainment and the post 2030 Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Trusted agent for spectrum An important element of working with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) is the use of trusted agents; technically trained individuals from industry with appropriate security clearances that can work as an interface between industry and DOD in assessing the ability to share or clear spectrum that is currently in use by the Department. The committee understands that the Department has been reviewing the procedures for using trusted agents. However, the review process has taken an exceedingly long time, causing delays in the ability of DOD to effectively work with industry. The committee directs the Department to report back on the status of implementing procedures for using trusted agents as part of the CSMAC process by July 31, 2013. 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 $4.0 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. Department of Defense Readiness Restoration Fund (sec. 1002) The committee recommends a provision that would establish a Department of Defense (DOD) Readiness Restoration Fund in order to provide the DOD with increased flexibility to transfer funds that may be available to high priority readiness accounts, where necessary to address significant shortfalls in funding otherwise available for the training activities of the armed forces (including flying hours and steaming days) and the maintenance of military equipment. The committee directs the Department to notify Congress regarding the use of this authority using guidelines similar to that of notifications to Congress for the use of general transfer authorities. Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities Extension of authority to support the unified counter-drug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for 2 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. The provision would also incorporate an updated notification to Congress to improve transparency of the Department of Defense's use of this authority. The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has made and continues to make progress combating narcotics trafficking and designated foreign terrorist organizations. This type of flexible authority is still required to assist the Government of Colombia consolidate its hard-fought gains, but the committee expects to see reductions in the level of assistance provided to Colombia, as has been agreed to in our bilateral engagements with the Colombians. Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities (sec. 1012) The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by 2 fiscal years, the support by joint task forces under section 1022(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as most recently amended by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). While the committee continues to be pleased with the Department's judicious use of this authority, the committee also believes there are additional activities that could potentially be conducted, most notably in additional investments in developing intelligence and supporting other departments' and agencies' efforts to develop additional intelligence on the nexus that exists between transnational criminal organizations and foreign terrorist organizations. The committee urges the Department to look closely at these matters in North Africa. Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 1013) The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by 5 years, the authority to provide support for counterdrug activities of certain foreign governments under subsection (a)(2) of section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently amended by section 1006 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The provision would also expand the list of countries eligible to receive support to include the Governments of Chad, Libya, Mali, and Niger. Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards Modification of requirements for annual long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels (sec. 1021) The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 231 of title 10, Unites Sates Code, to include a requirement to report on the total cost of construction for each vessel used to determine estimated levels of annual funding in the report, and an assessment of the extent of the strategic and operational risk to national security whenever the number or capabilities of the naval vessels in the plan do not meet requirements. Report on naval vessels and the Force Structure Assessment (sec. 1022) The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2014, that would assess the current fleet capabilities compared to the threat and the likely situation over the next 30 years. The CNO should produce an unclassified report, and a classified annex to that report. Section 1105 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Secretary of the Navy to provide a comprehensive description of the current requirements for combatant vessels of the Navy, including submarines. The Navy submitted that report which reflected that, while the previous requirement was for a fleet of 313 ships, originally identified in a 2005 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) and revalidated in 2010, the new requirements have declined to a total of 306 ships. Within this seven-ship net decrease to 306 ships, actual combat power is reduced by six large surface combatants, three small surface combatants, and four cruise missile submarines, for a total reduction of 13 combatant ships, offset by an increase of six command and support ships. The reduction in cruise missile submarines reflects a Navy plan not to replace these ships when they retire in the late 2020s. In congressional testimony this year about the 2012 FSA, representatives of the Department of the Navy asserted that the revised fleet size goal considered various factors, including the revised Defense Strategic Guidance in 2012, changed Navy mission requirements, different individual ship capabilities, fleet networking capabilities, and ship basing arrangements and operational cycles, as opposed to just platforms or numbers of ships. The committee notes that the current fleet of 283 battle force ships provides combatant commanders (COCOM) with a greater array of fire power than did the Navy fleets of 500 or more ships of the Cold War era, with precision-guided air- delivered weapons, numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and the sophistication of command, control, communications, and computer systems; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems; and networking capabilities that did not exist during the Cold War. The President's 2012 revised U.S. defense strategy calls for a rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific region, a predominantly maritime and aerospace domain. This will most likely increase demands for Navy fleet resources and deployments in that region in competition with global demand. Regarding global demands for naval forces, Navy officials testified last year that fully satisfying COCOM requests for forward-deployed Navy forces in various regions would require more than 500 ships. The Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2014, dated May 10, 2013, proposes near-term retirements of cruisers and amphibious ships, resulting in 270 ships, the smallest fleet since 1917. The committee is concerned that the plan will not meet the goal of a 306-ship battle force inventory until 2037 and assumes risk over the 30-year period, with periodic shortages of aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, attack submarines, and amphibious ships. The committee notes that the Navy possesses only 28 amphibious ships, with an average of only 22 ships available for surge deployment, despite a Marine Corps requirement for 38 amphibious ships. As such, the committee is also concerned that the Navy's shortfall in amphibious ships adds risk to the Marine Corps' ability to meet current and future COCOM requests. There are also risks with the Navy's plan beyond mere numbers of ships: (1) within the plan, the Navy intends that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will comprise over one third of the Navy's total surface combatant fleet by 2028. This fact compounds risk, since the LCS to date has not completed operational testing or demonstrated adequate performance of assigned missions in critical areas of mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, or anti- submarine operations; (2) with its decision in the fiscal year 2013 budget to delay the procurement of the first Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine by 2 years, to fiscal year 2021, the Navy has consumed all schedule margin for replacing the existing Ohio-class boats on a timely basis, and increased the risk that an unforeseen event affecting a strategic missile submarine's operational availability would prevent the Navy from being able to fully satisfy U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) requirements; and (3) the 2012 FSA and the shipbuilding plan do not account for the possible effects of further budget cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Various representatives of the Navy have testified that, if Department of Defense budgets are reduced below levels shown in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2014, the Navy will have to reduce the size and capabilities of the fleet to reflect further changes in U.S. defense strategy and available Navy resources. Given the risks inherent in the planned size of the Navy, the capabilities of the ships planned, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the potential affordability of the Navy's shipbuilding plans at a time of significant uncertainty in defense budgets, the committee agrees that in order to adequately assess the ability of the fleet proposed by the 2012 FSA to meet national security requirements, there needs to be an objective set of standards to assess the ability of the Navy to meet national security objectives, as opposed to simply relying on numbers and types of platforms. The committee also believes that a failure to recapitalize our sea-based strategic nuclear deterrent on time would have devastating impacts on deterrence and strategic stability. Accordingly, the committee directs the CNO to pay particular attention in producing the report to the Navy's ability to fully meet STRATCOM requirements. Repeal of policy relating to propulsion systems of any new class of major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy (sec. 1023) The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). That section requires that the Navy build any new class of major surface combatant and amphibious assault ship with an integrated nuclear power system, unless the Secretary of the Navy notifies the congressional defense committees that, as a result of a cost- benefit analysis, it would not be practical for the Navy to design the class of ships with an integrated nuclear power system. As a matter of acquisition management laws and regulations, the Navy must conduct an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for all such vessels to determine the ship characteristics, including the required propulsion and power generation mechanism. The AoA outcome for each surface combatant and amphibious assault ship should be based on an independent and objective systems engineering and business case analysis. Within that analysis, the Navy can evaluate the advisability of using an integrated nuclear propulsion system to determine the best value for the Federal Government. Clarification of sole ownership resulting from ship donations at no cost to the Navy (sec. 1024) The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (a) of section 7306 of title 10, United States Code. Section 7306, which governs disposition of vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel Register, authorizes the Department of the Navy to donate any vessel stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. The provision requires that, as a condition of a donation, donated naval vessels be maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Secretary of the Navy. The Navy has found that this statutory requirement presents numerous problems associated with ownership, maintenance costs, and historic preservation. The provision would eliminate the statutory requirement with regard to future donations, but would not affect prior donation contracts. The provision clarifies the purpose of any such transfer would be to operate the vessel as a museum or memorial for public display in the United States. This additional language would provide the Navy with the flexibility to oversee a vessel donee's actions, without any implication that the Navy retains ownership of the vessel. Subtitle D--Counterterrorism Transfers to foreign countries of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer or release Guantanamo detainees to their country of origin or another country other than the United States if: (1) the Secretary of Defense has determined, based on the findings of the Periodic Review Board process, that the detainee no longer constitutes a threat to U.S. national security; (2) the transfer or release is required to effectuate a court order; or (3) the detainee has been tried in a court or competent tribunal on charges based on the same conduct that served as the basis for his designation as an enemy combatant and the detainee has been acquitted of such charges or has been convicted and served the sentence pursuant to the conviction. The provision would also require that for other transfers of Guantanamo detainees to countries other than the United States, the Secretary of Defense must determine prior to any such transfer that actions have been or will be taken that will substantially mitigate the risk of the detainee re-engaging in terrorist or other hostile activity against the United States, and that the transfer is in the U.S. national security interest. The Secretary would be required to submit a notification to the appropriate congressional committees not less than 30 days in advance of the transfer or release, including a statement of the basis for the transfer or release. The committee notes that the administration has raised concerns that the certification requirements Congress has enacted on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries have made it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out such transfers. At the same time, the administration has yet to attempt to transfer any Guantanamo detainee under the certification requirements or to use the national security waiver granted under section 1028 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) and section 1028 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee emphasizes that the certification requirements for such transfers were never intended to constitute an absolute prohibition on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to countries other than the United States, and believes the provisions of this section should help clarify the requirements applicable to such transfers. 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. 1032) The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to authorize the temporary transfer of detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility (GTMO) to a Department of Defense (DOD) medical facility for the sole purpose of providing emergency or critical medical treatment that is not available at GTMO and is necessary to prevent 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 the medical treatment and must be returned to GTMO as soon as medically feasible. The committee notes that the United States is obligated 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 the Secretary of Defense under this section would address concerns that have arisen regarding the standard of medical care for GTMO detainees, particularly as that population ages, and U.S. compliance with its obligations to provide humane treatment. Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033) The committee recommends a provision that would extend through fiscal year 2014 the prohibition under section 1027 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1911) on the transfer or release of detainees held at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive this prohibition for the transfer of GTMO detainees to the United States for detention and trial if: (1) the Secretary determines that such a transfer is in the national security interest of the United States; (2) steps have been taken to address any risk to public safety; and (3) the appropriate congressional committees are notified not later than 30 days in advance of any such transfer to the United States. Clarification of procedures for use of alternate members on military commissions (sec. 1034) The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, on military commissions to clarify the authority and procedures by which the convening authority may detail alternate members to a military commission. The provision would also clarify the military judge's discretion to grant both parties additional peremptory challenges as may be required in the interests of justice. Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces Modification of responsibilities and reporting requirements of Nuclear Weapons Council (sec. 1041) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 179 of title 10, United States Code, by striking the responsibilities for nuclear command, control, and communications since other sections of this Act establishes a Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System. The provision adds a new responsibility to report on joint activities between the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy on nuclear security. Modification of deadline for report on plan for nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex (sec. 1042) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), which provides for a report to the congressional defense committees with a 10-year funding profile for the Department of Energy's (DOE) and the Department of Defense's (DOD) strategic deterrent modernization program. Specifically, the provision would give both departments 60 days after budget submission to deliver the section 1043 report. If a delay is anticipated that is greater than 60 days, DOE and DOD must notify the congressional defense committees before the President's budget submission and provide a briefing no later than 30 days after budget submission. The committee expects the briefing to be detailed enough and consistent with section 1043 to enable the congressional defense committees to conduct their oversight duties. Last year, the section 1043 report was submitted to the congressional defense committees on May 7, 2012, more than 60 days past the fiscal year 2013 budget submission and without the 10-year projection by DOE which Congress never received. This year, Congress received the 10-year DOE projection but has not received the 10-year DOD budget projection nor the section 1043 report. The revised requirements recommended by the committee should be sufficient to accommodate the interagency coordination process between DOD and DOE. If DOD and DOE fail to meet the standard of reasonableness laid out in this provision the committee will legislate with stronger measures. Cost estimates and comparisons relating to interoperable warhead (sec. 1043) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Director of the Department of Defense Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation to estimate life extensions of the W-78 and W-88 warheads and compare that to the interoperable warhead that is to replace both systems. In addition the provision would direct a cost estimation of the W-87 warhead. No funds may be spent past phase 6.2A for the interoperable warhead until the cost comparison with straight life extensions of the W-88 and W-78 warheads has been completed and submitted to the congressional defense committees, which is to be no later than April 1, 2014. Sense of Congress on ensuring the modernization of United States nuclear forces (sec. 1044) The committee recommends a provision that states it is the policy of the United States to modernize or replace the nuclear triad and sustain the nuclear stockpile, its production facilities, and science base. Readiness and flexibility of intercontinental ballistic missile force (sec. 1045) The committee recommends a provision that states the Secretary of Defense may in a manner consistent with international obligations, retain missile launch facilities currently supporting up to 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers, maintain intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) on alert or operationally deployed status, and preserve ICBM silos in operational or warm status. A report is required not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the feasibility and advisability of preserving ICBM silos in operational or warm status. Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations National security spectrum strategy (sec. 1051) The committee recommends a provision that would require a national security spectrum strategy to be performed at least once every 5 years. The strategy is to provide near-term (5 years), mid-term (10 years), and long-term (30 years) assessments of the need for national security spectrum. Department of Defense representation in dispute resolution regarding surrender of Department of Defense bands of electromagnetic frequencies (sec. 1052) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1062(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-65) to require that the Department of Defense be adequately represented to convey its views with the interagency process for spectrum allocation. Sense of Senate on parental rights of members of the Armed Forces in child custody determinations (sec. 1053) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of the Senate that State courts should not consider military deployment as the sole factor in determining child custody in a State court proceeding involving a parent who is a member of the armed forces. The best interest of the child should always prevail in custody cases, but members of the armed forces should not lose custody of their children based solely upon service to our country. Subtitle G--Studies and Reports Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 1061) 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. Report on plans for the disposition of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle fleet (sec. 1062) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the Department's analysis and plans for the disposition and sustainment of its fleet of mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles. The committee is aware that long-term plans for the distribution and sustainment of the fleet have been studied by the Department of Defense and each of the military departments. Given the significant investment in MRAP vehicles over the last 10 years, the committee wants to understand the Department's management and funding plans for MRAP disposal, retention, integration, and sustainment including modernization or upgrades, if any, necessary to meet current or future survivability and mobility requirements. Report on foreign language support contracts for the Department of Defense (sec. 1063) The committee recognizes that Department of Defense (DOD) operations require personnel with a range of foreign language skills and regional expertise, such as translation and interpretation capabilities. As evidenced in recent operational experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, these capabilities can be critical factors to mission success. Further, the committee believes that changes to the size and location of DOD's overseas presence, such as forward-stationed or deployed military forces, and a renewed emphasis on developing partnerships, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa, indicate that DOD will likely need to continue its significant investments in acquiring foreign language-related support for the foreseeable future. However, in the face of current fiscal pressures and budgetary constraints, the committee also believes that DOD has a heightened need to maximize efficiencies and that one way to achieve greater efficiencies is through more coordinated acquisition approaches. Over the years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified opportunities for DOD to improve its approach to contracting from a broad perspective as well as in areas related to foreign language support. For example, DOD contract management remains on the GAO's list of high-risk areas in the Federal Government and, in its 2013 annual report to Congress highlighting areas in the Federal Government where duplication, overlap, and fragmentation exist, and where programs may be able to achieve greater efficiencies in providing government services, GAO identified DOD's management of foreign language support contracts as one of 31 areas in the Federal Government where greater efficiencies might be achieved. At that time, GAO reported that DOD had obligated over $6.8 billion from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 on contracts to acquire foreign language-related services and products for its forces. GAO also noted that DOD had centralized the contracting for certain foreign language-related services and products under an executive agent and had realized some efficiencies, but that the executive agent's focus had been exclusively on translation and interpretation services and that DOD had not taken steps to comprehensively assess whether additional opportunities existed to gain efficiencies in fragmented contracts for other types of foreign language support which are estimated to cost more than $1.0 billion annually. Other GAO work has found that agencies, including DOD, reported savings ranging between 5 and 20 percent by implementing more coordinated acquisition approaches rather than fragmented contracting. Therefore, on the basis of the level of DOD's considerable investment in contracts for foreign language support both now and in the future, the committee believes DOD may be able to achieve significant cost savings by comprehensively assessing whether additional opportunities exist to gain efficiencies in fragmented contracts for all types of foreign language support. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to assess the Department's current approach for managing foreign language support contracts. At a minimum, such an assessment should include an analysis of spending for all the types foreign language support services and products that have been acquired by DOD components and a reevaluation, based on the results of the analysis of spending, of the scope of the DOD executive agent's management of foreign language support contracts to determine whether any adjustments are needed. Civil Air Patrol (sec. 1064) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to produce a report on the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) that would assess certain aspects of the current CAP aircraft program, including: (1) what is the requirement for the total fleet of CAP aircraft; (2) how are those requirements for CAP aircraft derived; and (3) how are CAP aircraft allocated among that various operating locations. The Secretary should submit this report with the fiscal year 2015 budget request. The committee understands that the Secretary of the Air Force is considering options to reduce the size of the CAP, but believes that the Secretary should conduct a more thorough assessment of requirements before making any final decision on these options. Eagle Vision system (sec. 1065) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense committees and intelligence committees a report on the Eagle Vision imagery ground station. The report elements would include a description and assessment of the Department of Defense organizations to which the Eagle Vision system could be transferred, as well as the actions that would need to be taken prior to a transfer, the potential schedule for a transfer, and the possible effects of a transfer on the capabilities or use of the system. The provision would prohibit the Air Force from making changes to the organization and management of the program until 90 days after the submission of the report to Congress. Subtitle H--Other Matters Extension of the Ministry of Defense Advisor Program (sec. 1081) The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense for 5 fiscal years, to advise foreign defense ministries. The provision would also extend the requirement of the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and would provide the Comptroller General of the United States an additional year to conduct the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program under the original authority. The committee supports the request of the Department of Defense (DOD) to extend this authority in order to ensure that they can effectively attract personnel to the program and determine whether this program and its associated activities could prove successful in implementing the priorities of the Secretary of Defense in high priority countries around the world. However, the committee is aware of concerns and recommendations raised by the DOD Inspector General about the financial management of a nearly identical program being conducted in Afghanistan pursuant to a different authority. The committee urges the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to ensure that the matters raised by the DOD Inspector General about the similar program in Afghanistan are addressed promptly and that those modifications are incorporated into the management processes of the program conducted pursuant to section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). Further, the committee notes that to date, DOD has not deployed any personnel under this authority and that the first planned deployment will be to Montenegro. The committee hopes the Department will review the prospective deployment of officials under this authority to ensure that each deployment will be to a nation where the United States and the prospective partner have significant mutual security interests. Items of Special Interest Airborne Nuclear Command Post The Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force are directed to report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the Airborne Nuclear Command Post and the Airborne Launch Control System, including system electronics and trainers. The report shall also outline how a modernization plan will provide for battle staff training. The report shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2014. Air Force weapons storage areas The committee strongly supports the Air Force decision to move forward with reconstituting nuclear Air Force bases with weapons storage areas (WSA). Reconstituting WSA will provide a second nuclear weapons storage capability for Air Force Global Strike Command and provide necessary survivability of the Nation's enduring strategic nuclear deterrents. Given the Air Force's 15-year proposal, the committee requests the Secretary of the Air Force to provide an up-to-date report detailing the reexamined plans, including requirements and costs, for reconstituting a second nuclear weapons storage capability for nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles, as well as the potential benefits of such a reconstitution and potential savings or benefits achieved through shortening the timeframe. Army force structure and installation alignment The committee is aware that beginning in January 2007, in response to the demands for the support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the active duty Army grew by 65,000 soldiers and five combat brigades. To accommodate this growth the Army initiated a variety of programs, including facilities improvements and military construction, necessary to house and train these additional forces. As force requirements for Iraq have concluded and for Afghanistan have declined, in January 2012 the President announced the Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) in which the active duty Army would decrease by 80,000 soldiers and inactivate up to eight combat brigades by the end fiscal year 2017. At the same time the Army is reducing end strength and combat brigade force structure, it is likely to change the structure of the remaining infantry and armor combat brigades by adding to some a third maneuver battalion. The committee is concerned that end strength and force structure reductions and changes so soon after efforts to accommodate growth may result in the misalignment of remaining forces with installations and facilities to maximize the readiness and the quality of life of soldiers and their families. 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 decision-making processes associated with planned force structure reductions and their alignment with installations. As a supplement to this work by the GAO, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to brief the congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 2013, explaining how the Army is maximizing existing installation capacities and capabilities, including facilities related to combat brigade training and readiness, to meet future force requirements. Counter threat finance efforts Counter threat finance (CTF) leverages the capabilities of the interagency to help detect, deter, disrupt, and destroy terrorist organizations and those supporting terrorism by targeting the foundation of their operations, their financial resources. CTF is a critical component of the United States Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, which was released on July 25, 2011. The Department of Defense (DOD) has played a significant role in interagency CTF efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and continues to develop and expand its ability to disrupt our adversaries both on and off the battlefield. Pursuant to the DOD CTF Directive (DODD 5205.14) issued in August 2010, DOD has recognized the CTF discipline as an essential tool in combating criminal networks and terrorist organizations worldwide, and has outlined a plan to integrate this capability into its doctrine, strategy, and operational planning. The committee recognizes DODD 5205.14 as a welcome step towards institutionalizing the successful efforts of the joint interagency CTF cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq Threat Finance Cell (ITFC) under joint DOD-Department of Treasury leadership and the Afghan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC) under Drug Enforcement Agency leadership both led efforts to identify and disrupt funding sources supporting insurgent and terrorist organizations, aided in the identification of key insurgency members and enablers, and supported threat finance intelligence (TFI) collection and analysis. It is important for DOD to ensure that lessons learned from these initiatives are captured and institutionalized to build upon successes and mature DOD's capability to apply the CTF discipline to new problem sets. DOD must be able to integrate with, support, and enable other law enforcement and government agencies' CTF activities. Moreover, it is important that DOD, in accordance with DODD 5205.14, operationalize TFI and CTF efforts in a way that prevents duplication and maximizes effectiveness. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, a report outlining each CTF and TFI activity currently being planned or conducted by DOD. Each summary should include a detailed description of the activity, identification of lead and supporting agencies, both within and outside DOD, a description of each agency's role, the level and source of funding associated with each activity, a description of the desired outcomes from each activity, and a description of how this activity aligns with the goals of existing interagency strategies to find terrorism, corruption, crimes, narcotics, and other transnational threats, including United States Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. The report should also include a summary of operational lessons, best practices, and tools employed in ITFC and ATFC efforts and how they can be replicated to advance other DOD CTF missions, as well as a description of the efforts, both within DOD and between DOD and other relevant agencies, to foster communication and ensure integrated support to interagency partners. Further, the report should contain the Secretary's assessment of the progress made to date in the implementation of DODD 5205.14, any current gaps in DOD's CTF capabilities and authorities, and any other information the Secretary deems appropriate. The report shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex, if warranted. Department of Defense support to U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas While the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have primary responsibility for the security of American diplomatic facilities around the globe, it does provide the State Department and other departments and agencies--on an as- requested basis--support to ensure they can fulfill its varying security requirements. The committee recognizes the value of these facilities--including facilities in high-risk/high-threat locations--in establishing a U.S. presence in such areas, not only for diplomatic objectives but also for essential national defense missions. For this reason, it is critical that DOD be both funded and postured to fulfill its commitments as a supporting agency. One element of this support is the United States Marine Security Guard Program. Section 404 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the Marine Security Guard Program, and to report to Congress by October 1, 2013, on the results of this review. The provision also required the Secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of Marines in the Marine Security Guard Program by up to 1,000 personnel to improve security at our embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic facilities. The budget request for fiscal year 2014 begins implementation of that requirement. In addition, the State Department's Accountability Review Board (ARB) recommended that the State Department and DOD identify additional flexible Marine Corps Security Guard structures and provide more capabilities and capacities at higher risk posts. DOD has already started to address this recommendation by: (1) forward deploying and adjusting the alert posture of security augmentation forces in the most volatile areas; (2) supporting the State Department's efforts to look at hardening facilities and reassessing diplomatic security; and (3) enhancing intelligence collection and ensuring that military forces in critical areas are prepared to respond to crisis, if necessary. The committee endorses these improvements and directs the Secretary to submit a report to the committee by no later than August 1, 2013, on DOD's implementation of these measures, as well as any additional steps that should be taken to ensure we are doing everything possible to protect our personnel and facilities abroad. Fiscal priorities The committee notes that on May 17, 2013 the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted two reprogramming actions to the congressional defense committees totaling $9.6 billion. Of this, $7.3 billion of the transfers seek to offset shortfalls in fiscal year 2013 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. These shortfalls have occurred because operating tempo exceeds the level anticipated in the fiscal year 2013 budget; transportation costs are higher due to unanticipated problems with the Ground Lines of Communication; and fuel costs are higher. The Department has informed the committee that even if the congressional defense committees approve all the items in these reprogramming actions that the services will still face a fiscal year 2013 OCO shortfall totaling $3.7 billion. The committee notes that the pending reprogramming actions include $3.4 billion in DOD base budget to OCO transfers and will exhaust nearly all of the transfer authority available to the Department. The Department will not leave troops in combat without fuel or ammunition or any needed item. Without relief to these shortfalls, the Department will have to implement additional reductions to base operation and maintenance accounts to ensure the warfighter will have what they need on the front lines. The result will be to further exacerbate the already serious problems that face DOD as a result of sequestration. DOD faces serious problems due to sequestration, affecting every individual in the Department. The Department has issued furlough notices to nearly 700,000 civilian employees--roughly 85 percent of its workforce--to begin furlough for one day per week beginning on July 8, 2013, and lasting through the end of the fiscal year. Civilian furloughs impact everything from DOD schools to military medical facilities to military family support programs. Active duty, Reserve, and National Guard members are also feeling the brunt of sequestration. As we have heard from senior leader testimony this spring, the Army has already cancelled two-thirds of its training. As a result of sequestration cuts to flying hours, civilian furlough actions, and facilities sustainment, the Army will feel readiness impacts into fiscal year 2014 with many active component units untrained for immediate deployment, a backlog of aviation training, deferred reset of equipment, and cancelled training courses. In fiscal year 2013, the Air Force has a $4.4 billion shortfall in its operations and maintenance accounts, impacting flying hours and readiness. As a result, the Air Force has already grounded one-third of fighter and bomber squadrons, and warns that it will be in a state of ``tiered readiness,'' diminishing combat readiness to be able to respond to contingencies. As a result of shortfalls in its operation and maintenance accounts, the Navy had to make decisions to maintain its readiness, by deferring the deployment of the USS Truman to the Middle East, and deferring critical ship maintenance and repair in the third and fourth quarter. As a result, by the end fiscal year 2013, two-thirds of Navy non- deployed ships and aviation squadrons will be less than fully mission capable and not certified for combat operations. Sequestration impacts the DOD's ability to respond to contingencies, resource its defense strategy, and plan for the future. It threatens stability in the defense industrial base, threatening a lost investment in a skilled workforce that is critical to national security. Domestic agencies also face serious problems due to sequestration, including severe cuts to Head Start programs, both on the side of educators and children enrolled in the program. Head Start serves over a million disadvantaged children and their families each year. Crippling cuts in other domestic agencies are extremely counterproductive, at a time when the economy is still recovering. All domestic agencies are harmed by sequestration, and there are counterproductive impacts on students, our education system, small businesses, infrastructure, homeland security, and the general economy. These are all also fundamental underpinnings to our national security. Sequester threatens harm to all. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages Congress and the Administration to work together to repeal sequestration and replace it with strategic and credible deficit reduction. Ground Based Strategic Deterrent The committee supports the Air Force's evaluation of possibilities for Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to follow the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), but shares the concerns expressed by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Madelyn R. Creedon, when she testified at a Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on April 17, 2013, that: ``I know this has taken a lot longer than we anticipated. But, one of the things that we want to make sure that we fully examined is all the options,'' as well as the concerns expressed by Lieutenant General James M. Kowalski, USAF, Commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command, when he testified at the same hearing that: ``we had some bureaucratic delays as the study plan went back and forth. The study is about to begin.'' The administration's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review stated that: ``studies to inform that decision [on a follow-on ICBM] are needed now.'' The committee believes it is important that the Air Force complete its review in 2014 and expeditiously brief the congressional defense committees on its results. In the interim, the committee directs the Air Force to brief the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the Analysis of Alternatives for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, including its terms of reference. Impact of B-61 program delay Testimony before this committee by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) stated that the first production unit of the B-61 Mod 12 will be in 2019. However testimony this year to the committee by the Sandia Laboratory Director Paul Hommert has stated ``From what I can tell now, as a result of sequestration in '13, and what we have seen in the '14 budget, we are going to slip off that plan . . . not dramatically . . . but in my view we will see schedule impact.'' Given the uncertainty of sequestration and continuing resolutions and their possible impact on the 2019 date, the committee directs the Department of Defense in consultation with the NNSA to develop a joint plan to mitigate the impact to the existing stockpile of fielded B-61 weapons in the event that the first production units fail to meet the 2019 date. The mitigation plan shall include technical mitigation details and estimated costs for each year of delay. The mitigation plan shall be due no later than February 28, 2014. Reforming the security classification system Multiple independent commissions over the last two decades have stressed the need for reform of the security classification system, noting that the system that has evolved since World War II is overly complex, and leads to over- classification, depriving citizens unnecessarily of information about their government's operations. In 2000, Congress established the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB), with distinguished members appointed by the President and the leadership of both parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In 2009, in his Implementing Memorandum for Executive Order 13526, the President directed the PIDB to work with the National Security Advisor to design a transformation of the security classification system. After a long period of study, in November 2012, the PIDB submitted its report to the President, which included a recommendation for the White House to establish a steering committee to implement the recommended reforms. The PIDB report, titled ``Transforming the Security Classification System,'' states that the current system, designed for manual processing in the pre-digital era, is breaking under the increasing pace and volume of data generated today. According to the PIDB report, a single intelligence agency classifies a petabyte of information every 18 months. One petabyte is equivalent to approximately 20 million filing cabinets filled with text or about 13.3 years of high definition video. The cost of managing and securing these records government-wide has doubled over the past decade from $4.7 billion in 2001 to $11.4 billion in 2011. Reforming current practices will require active participation from stakeholders across the national security community. The committee expects the Department of Defense to be a meaningful participant in any future interagency effort to overhaul security classification processes and systems. The committee also directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to review the PIDB report and provide an assessment of the PIDB recommendations to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. Report on reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget to meet the savings requirement established by the Budget Control Act The fiscal year 2014 budget request and the fiscal year 2014 budget resolutions passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives all assume that sequestration currently required by the Budget Control Act (Public Law 112-25) will be avoided in fiscal year 2014. To date, there has been virtually no sign of movement toward a bipartisan agreement that would vitiate sequestration in fiscal year 2014. In the absence of such an agreement the Department of Defense (DOD) will face an across-the-board reduction of $52.0 billion early next year. Virtually every DOD witness who has come before the Committee on Armed Services this year has testified that an additional round of sequestration in fiscal year 2014 would be devastating for the Department. Despite this testimony many members of Congress and the public seem to believe that sequestration is an effective way to cut government spending and can be made workable by providing the Department with additional flexibility of making minor adjustments. The committee believes that there is an increasing risk that DOD and other federal agencies will face sequestration again in fiscal year 2014. Understanding the consequences of another sequestration is important to avoiding it. For this reason, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than July 1, 2013, that describes in detail a package of reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget that the Secretary believes to be the most workable approach for meeting the $52.0 billion savings requirement established by the Budget Control Act. The report should also discuss the impact on the Department of Defense and on military readiness if the Secretary is required to implement sequestration cuts in fiscal year 2014. Strategic Automated Command and Control System Modernization Plan The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the Strategic Automated Command and Control System, including system electronics and trainers as well as integration into the new United States Strategic Command Headquarters. The report shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2014. TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS Extension of voluntary reduction-in-force authority for civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1101) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United States Code, to extend through September 30, 2018 the authority of the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department to allow certain civilian employees to volunteer for reduction-in-force separations. Extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments to Department of Defense employees (sec. 1102) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United States Code, to extend until October 1, 2018 the authority for the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department to pay the total amount of severance pay to an eligible civilian employee in one lump sum. Expansion of protection of employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities from reprisals (sec. 1103) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1587(b) of title 10, United States Code, to align protections from reprisals for employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities with protections from reprisals for other Department of Defense civilian personnel. Extension of enhanced appointment and compensation authority for civilian personnel for care and treatment of wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces (sec. 1104) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1599c of title 10, United States Code, to extend through December 31, 2020, the existing authority of the Secretary of Defense to exercise any authority for the appointment and pay of health care personnel under chapter 74 of title 38, United States Code, for purposes of recruitment, employment, and retention of civilian health care professionals for the Department of Defense. The provision would repeal the now-obsolete section 1599c requirement for the service secretaries to develop and implement a strategy to disseminate the authorities and best practices for the recruitment of medical and health professionals. Amount of educational assistance under Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense Education Program (sec. 1105) The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense (DOD) legislative proposal, that would increase the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to determine the amount of the financial assistance delivered by the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) program. The committee acknowledges the DOD's request to also allow this program to accept non-U.S. citizens, as SMART scholarship recipients. While the committee recognizes that DOD needs the flexibilities to attract the best and brightest scientists and engineers, it notes that DOD does not appear to have a strategy to hire these students into DOD laboratories--given that the SMART program requires one year of DOD employment for each year of financial assistance. Hence, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, working with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to develop a strategy that would address how it would hire those non-U.S. citizens that would be funded by the SMART program and provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. With such a strategy in place, the committee would give additional consideration of this proposed authority. Flexibility in employment and compensation of civilian faculty at certain additional Department of Defense schools (sec. 1106) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1595(c) of title 10, United States Code, to add the Defense Institute for Security Assistance Management and the Joint Special Operations University to the list of Department of Defense schools at which the Secretary of Defense may employ and compensate civilian faculty as the Secretary considers necessary. Temporary authority for direct appointment to certain positions at Department of Defense research and engineering facilities (sec. 1107) The committee recommends a provision that would allow Department of Defense laboratories direct hire authority for qualified candidates possessing a bachelor's degree as well as qualified veteran candidates. This authority would sunset on December 31, 2019. Modernization of titles of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities for purposes of certain civil service laws (sec. 1108) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2105(c) of title 5, United States Code, to remove the reference to Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service and Navy Ship's Stores Ashore and replace it with the Navy Ships Stores Program in order to provide a more accurate and current definition of nonappropriated fund instrumentality employees. Item of Special Interest Department of Defense civilian leadership programs The committee notes that section 1112 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111- 84) required the Secretary of Defense to establish a Department of Defense (DOD) Civilian Leadership Program in order to recruit individuals with the academic merit, work experience, and demonstrated leadership skills needed for the Department's civilian employee workforce. The statute further mandates that program participants must include both entry-level and midcareer individuals. The committee understands that DOD currently provides three programs for civilian leadership development: (1) the Defense Civilian Emerging Leader Program (DCELP) for entry-level employees; (2) the Executive Leadership Development Program (ELDP) for midcareer employees; and (3) the Defense Senior Leader Development Program for senior employees. The committee has learned that DOD has cancelled the remainder of the scheduled training for the ELDP as a result of implementing sequestration guidance on training and travel restrictions, and that DOD does not believe the ELDP is a leader development program required by law. The committee believes that all three of these leadership development programs are important and that the ELDP fulfills the statutory mandate set forth by section 1112 in the same way as the DCELP. Therefore, the committee expects the Department to robustly pursue all three of these civilian leadership development programs in future years. TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS Subtitle A--Assistance and Training Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1201) The committee recommends a provision that would extend through September 30, 2018, the authority under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456), as amended, for the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to carry out a program to build the capacity of foreign military forces to conduct counterterrorism operations or to participate in or support military and stability operations in which the United States is a participant. The provision would require a report by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State that delineates the scope of counterterrorism operations for which assistance is authorized to be provided under section 1206 of Public Law 109-163, to include purpose, activities, and measures of effectiveness. The report also requires a prioritized list of threats to be addressed in order to ensure that assistance is focused on the highest priority threats within a regional and global strategic framework. Revisions to Global Security Contingency Fund authority (sec. 1202) The committee recommends a provision that would make certain technical amendments to the authority for the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) under section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1625). The GSCF is intended to provide the Department of State and the Department of Defense (DOD) a flexible authority to enable a timely response to security challenges that may arise outside the normal budget planning process. The committee is concerned, therefore, about the lengthy delays in standing up this program due to a range of bureaucratic issues, such as legal interpretations of GSCF authorities, which have contributed to the program's failure to date to initiate any projects under GSCF. The committee understands that concerns have arisen about how broadly to interpret the types of assistance authorized under the program. It is the committee's view that the GSCF's authority to provide training should be understood broadly to include educational activities, professional guidance, and ministerial-level institutional advice. The committee understands that another issue that has contributed to delays in standing up the GSCF program is the need for further clarification of the appropriate level of programmatic detail required in the congressional notification process. The committee believes that the notification processes that have been developed under other similar security assistance authorities, such as the Global Train and Equip program under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456), as amended, have provided an appropriate level of congressional notification and should serve as a guide for the notification process under the GSCF program. The committee hopes that the Department of State and DOD will continue to consult closely with this committee should issues relating to the GSCF arise in the future. Training of general purpose forces of the United States Armed Forces with military and other security forces of friendly foreign countries (sec. 1203) The committee recommends a provision that would permit the Secretary of Defense to authorize training with the military forces or other security forces of a friendly foreign country in order to prepare the United States armed forces to train the military forces or other security forces of a friendly foreign country and enhance interoperability. Training with foreign military forces under this authority must be in the U.S. national interest and consistent with U.S. national security strategy as well as the recent Presidential guidance on security sector assistance. United States counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North Africa (sec. 1204) The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic framework for U.S. counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North Africa, including but not limited to programs conducted under the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership, Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara (OEF-TS), and other related security assistance activities. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the details of this framework, as well as on lessons-learned from recent developments in Mali and the region. The committee notes that the military-led coup against Mali's democratically elected government in 2012, the ensuing expansion of violent extremist organizations in Northern Mali, and the collapse of the Malian military raise concerns regarding the effectiveness of U.S. counterterrorism cooperation and assistance programs in the Sahel region. Most prominently, concerns were highlighted concerning the Trans- Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP) and OEF-TS which were intended to be of benefit to Mali. In particular, units and individuals who had been targeted for U.S. training and assistance figured prominently in both the collapse of Mali's military in the North and in the coup in Bamako. Unquestionably, these developments constitute a setback for U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region and they also lead to questions about the effectiveness of U.S. assistance in recent years, though some participating nations, most notably Chad, have played key roles in mounting a response to events in Mali. Unfortunately, the Mali experience is not unique. U.S. efforts to develop regional counterterrorism partnerships are being undertaken in a context in which coups, instability, and concerns about human rights abuses constitute historical and often ongoing risks. Recent events on the ground underscore issues raised by outside evaluators regarding TSCTP, OEF-TS, and related programs. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2008 identified concerns about a lack of clearly identified objectives, challenges in interagency coordination at the regional level, and inadequate program evaluation. GAO recommended that the agencies involved develop a comprehensive strategy designed to clarify objectives, priorities, and milestones for use in program evaluation. While the Departments of Defense and State agreed with GAO's recommendations, 5 years have passed without strategy articulation. Events in Mali have underscored the importance of continued focus on developing long-term regional counterterrorism capabilities instead of short-term tactical operations focused primarily on individual country conditions and outcomes. The committee is concerned that existing efforts, when assessed from a regional perspective, have been compromised by lack of clarity about objectives and priorities, incoherent planning, poor interagency coordination, and unclear metrics for evaluating success. Assistance to the Government of Jordan for border security operations (sec. 1205) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense--upon a determination from the President that it is in the national security interests of the United States--to use up to $75.0 million of amounts authorized for the Coalition Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to support the border security operations of the Jordanian Armed Forces. Authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability of foreign countries to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1206) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide assistance to the military and civilian first responders of a foreign country to enhance the capability of that country to respond effectively to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The committee notes that the U.S. strategy and policy for reducing the risks from WMD includes the participation and cooperation of foreign countries. The provision would permit the Defense Department to enhance the ability of foreign countries to respond to and reduce the consequences of WMD incidents, thus assisting in meeting the goals of U.S. strategy and policy to reduce the risks of WMD. Support of foreign forces participating in operations to disarm the Lord's Resistance Army (sec. 1207) Pursuant to the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172), the committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Department of Defense to obligate not more than $50.0 million in each fiscal year in operation and maintenance funding to provide logistical support, services and supplies, and intelligence support to: (1) the national military forces of Uganda participating in operations to mitigate or eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA); and (2) the national military forces of any other countries determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to be participating in operations to mitigate or eliminate the threat posed by the LRA. The Secretary's authority would expire upon the termination of Operation Observant Compass. Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 1211) The committee recommends a provision that would make up to $60.0 million available during fiscal year 2014 for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) under section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1619), as amended by section 1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1992). The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the lessons learned and best practices regarding the implementation of the CERP in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report would include a review of: training requirements for CERP managers; project planning, management, sustainability, and transfer; the project approval process; CERP oversight by the Department of Defense and Congress; and recommendations for the use of CERP in future contingency operations. The committee notes that with the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, responsibility for reconstruction efforts conducted by the U.S. military must continue to shift to other U.S. Government departments and agencies and to the Government of Afghanistan, which has a critical need to improve its governance capacity and delivery of services to the Afghan people. In addition, since one of the purposes of CERP is to provide force protection for U.S. combat forces by winning the support of local communities, the requirement for CERP should continue to decline as U.S. combat forces withdraw from Afghanistan. Therefore, the committee believes continuing reductions in CERP spending are appropriate and necessary as the December 2014 date nears for the end of combat operations in Afghanistan. Extension and modification of authority to support operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1212) The committee recommends a provision that would extend through fiscal year 2014 the authority under section 1215 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1631; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), as amended by section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), for the Secretary of Defense to support transition activities in Iraq by supporting the operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). The provision would authorize the use of up to $209.0 million in fiscal year 2014 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 and Counter Terrorism Service personnel in an institutional environment to address capability gaps and integrate certain processes within the Iraqi security forces. The provision would add a requirement that such training include elements to promote respect for human rights, military professionalism, and respect for legitimate civilian authority in Iraq. The provision would also extend and modify the requirement to update the report required under section 1211 of Public Law 112-239 to provide additional information and evaluations of the activities of the OSC-I. The committee encourages OSC-I to further reduce unnecessary overhead and support-function staffing in order to maximize the use of authorized funds for ensuring adequate force protection and supporting efforts to address capability gaps of the Iraqi security forces. The committee anticipates that colocation of OSC-I personnel within embassy facilities will improve interagency cooperation of this vital function. One-year extension and modification of authority to use funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1213) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 1-year extension of the authority under section 1216 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4392), as amended, to use Department of Defense funds to support the reintegration of former insurgent fighters into Afghanistan society. For fiscal year 2014, up to $25.0 million may be used to support reintegration activities under this section. The committee is concerned about the adequacy of procedures under the Afghanistan Reintegration Program for ensuring accountability of individuals who have reintegrated, due to the potential impact on the ability to track rates of recidivism and the integrity and viability of the reintegration program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the strategy and mechanisms used by the Government of Afghanistan and the Department of Defense to ensure accountability of reintegrees, including through such means as documenting the pledge process, collecting the biometric data of reintegrating individuals, and other identification procedures. The Secretary is further directed to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives on the findings of this review not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. One-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop and carry out infrastructure projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1214) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the authority under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111- 383; 124 Stat. 4393) for the Secretary of Defense to use Department of Defense (DOD) funds to support the Afghanistan Infrastructure Program (AIP) which carries out large-scale infrastructure projects in support of the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. The provision would authorize up to $250.0 million for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (AIF) to support the AIP. In addition, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, to report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days of the enactment of this Act on a plan for transitioning responsibility for the management of the AIP projects that are funded with AIF amounts authorized by this Act to the Government of Afghanistan by no later than December 31, 2014. The committee believes that the AIP has made important contributions to the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan. By expanding the delivery of such key services as electricity, irrigation, and roads, the AIP provides local communities a powerful incentive to work with the Government of Afghanistan and coalition forces. At the same time, with the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the transition of responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces for security throughout Afghanistan by no later than the end of 2014, DOD's role in funding these large infrastructure projects becomes hard to justify. The committee expects that, with the possible exception of unanticipated project management costs, no additional AIF amounts will be required after fiscal year 2014. Responsible transition of program management to Afghan authorities will maintain the viability of AIP-funded efforts as a component of the counterinsurgency campaign of Afghan security forces. In addition, the committee urges DOD to undertake the necessary planning to expeditiously and responsibly transition project management of AIP projects to the Government of Afghanistan or the Afghan utility Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat. Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States military operations (sec. 1215) The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2014 the authority under section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 393), as amended, for the Secretary of Defense to use Department of Defense (DOD) funds (``Coalition Support Funds'') to reimburse key nations for support they have provided to or in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), or to use such funds to provide specialized training or loan specialized equipment to key nations participating in OEF. The provision would limit the amount of Coalition Support Funds that could be provided in fiscal year 2014 to $1.5 billion. The provision would also extend for one year two requirements related to Coalition Support Funds for Pakistan. The first would be the requirement under section 1232(b)(6) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended, to provide as part of the 15- day prior notification of a reimbursement to Pakistan, a detailed description of the logistical and other support being reimbursed. The second would be the requirement under section 1227(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to make certain certifications regarding Pakistan's cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism and other efforts prior to any payment of Coalition Support Funds to Pakistan. The provision includes a national security waiver. Extension of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain United States military operations (sec. 1216) The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 year 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 most recently amended by section 1216(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). Extension and improvement of the Iraqi special immigrant visa program (sec. 1217) The committee recommends a provision that would extend--for 1 fiscal year--and modify the Iraq Special Immigrant Visa program. Extension and improvement of the Afghan special immigrant visa program (sec. 1218) The committee recommends a provision that would extend--for 1 fiscal year--and modify the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program. Sense of Congress on commencement of new long-term nation building or large-scale infrastructure development projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1219) The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should seek not to commence any new long-term nation-building or large- scale infrastructure-development projects in Afghanistan after 2014. Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters Two-year extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1231) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop, and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR) capabilities for 2 additional years. The committee appreciates the Department's efforts to improve its reporting on activities conducted under the NAR authority, but believes additional details are necessary in the notifications and quarterly reports submitted to Congress. Specifically, the report should include more detailed descriptions of the requirement for NAR capabilities in a particular region or country, the number and types of NAR capabilities developed under the authority, and the extent to which established NAR capabilities are exercised to ensure they remain reliable. The report should also, where applicable, describe how NAR networks are augmented by other authorities available to combatant commanders. The committee also believes that, given the potential sensitivity of the presence of NAR capabilities in a particular region or country, the establishment of such capabilities should be limited to those countries and regions where U.S. personnel are at greatest risk. Element on 5th generation fighter program in annual report on military and security developments involving the People's Republic of China (sec. 1232) The committee recommends a provision that would add a requirement for the Department of Defense to include information on China's 5th generation fighter programs in the congressionally-mandated Annual Report on Military and Security Developments involving the People's Republic of China. Although recent versions of the report include information about China's 5th generation fighters, this provision make this aspect of China's military development a permanent part of the annual report. Prohibition on use of funds to enter into contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1233) The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Department of Defense from entering into a contract or providing a loan to the Russian state corporation, Rosoboronexport, after fiscal year 2013. The provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive this prohibition if he determines that doing so is in the U.S. national security interest. Should the Secretary of Defense invoke the waiver, the Secretary would be required to notify Congress of the obligation of funds pursuant to the waiver not later than 30 days before the funds are obligated. The provision would also require, not later than 15 days after submitting the notification specified above, that the Secretary provide Congress certain information on Rosoboronexport's activities with Syria. Modification of statutory references to former North Atlantic Treaty Organization support organizations and related agreements (sec. 1234) The committee recommends a provision that would make technical amendments to title 10 and title 22, United States Code, to replace certain statutory references to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) organizations or agreements with appropriate references to successor organizations or agreements resulting from recent organizational reforms within the NATO structure. The technical amendments would facilitate completion of the NATO reform process by ensuring that the amended authorities under title 10 and title 22, United States Code, apply to the new NATO agencies. Technical correction relating to funding for NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1235) The committee recommends a provision that would make technical modifications to section 1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), as amended, that authorized the Secretary of Defense to use up to $50.0 million from Operation and Maintenance, Army, in any fiscal year to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). The technical modification is consistent with an agreement between the Army and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the April 2013 Resource Management Decision transferring resourcing responsibility from the Army to USSOCOM. The recommended provision would allow for the Secretary of Defense to provide up to $50.0 million in support to the NSHQ in any fiscal year from any Operation and Maintenance funds available to the Department of Defense. Strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials in the Middle East and North Africa Region (sec. 1236) The committee recommends a provision that directs the President to prepare a strategy and implementation plan for preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials in the Middle East and North Africa not later than March 31, 2014. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region represents a new generation of immediate and growing WMD-related proliferation challenges. Factors lending urgency to regional threat dynamics in this region include Syria's chemical weapons program, Iran's nuclear program and the influence of terrorist groups operating in the region. The Committee believes that it is critical that the United States develop a comprehensive, effective and efficient cooperative threat reduction (CTR) and nonproliferation strategy to address the challenge of WMD- related proliferation in the MENA region. Items of Special Interest Inter-American Defense College The committee notes that the Inter-American Defense College (IADC) is an international educational institution operating under the sponsorship and funding of the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board. IADC serves as a senior-service, international, joint academic institution center for security and defense studies of military, national police, and government civilians from nations throughout the Western Hemisphere. Since it was established in 1962, the IADC has had over 2,500 graduates, including general and flag officers, ministers, and heads of state. The committee supports IADC's mission and mandate and is pleased that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to serve as the host to this important international academic institution, which in addition to providing a comprehensive education for civilian and military officials across the Western Hemisphere, provides officials with a better understanding of the importance of respect for human rights, rule of law, and civilian control of the military. The committee is aware that the IADC Council of Delegates has directed its leadership to seek the authority to award advanced level degrees and the committee is also aware that DOD submitted a legislative proposal that would fulfill one element of a series of requirements established by the Department of Education for IADC to meet from its Council of Delegates. However, the committee is concerned that enacting just one element at this time will only serve to confuse IADC's authorities as an academic institution. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of Education, to conduct a review of IADC to determine what, if any, steps must be taken for the IADC to be considered a fully accredited degree granting institution in the United States. Should the Secretary find that legislative action is required, the committee expects the Secretary of Defense to submit any legislative proposals with the budget request for fiscal year 2015. Military-to-military cooperation with Somalia The establishment of the National Government of Somalia in August 2012 brings the promise of a new era for the people of Somalia, and follows the considerable and hard-fought successes of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and Somali National Security Forces efforts to secure the country over the past 2 years. Recognizing the significance of Somalia's newly established government and improved but tenuous security environment, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2093 suspends the 21-year-old arms embargo to allow for ``deliveries of weapons or military equipment or the provision of advice, assistance or training, intended solely for the development of the National Security Forces of the Federal Government of Somalia,'' and calls for the training, equipping, and capacity- building of Somalia National Security Forces, including both its armed forces and police. The committee believes that U.S. national security interests in the region would be well-served by Somali National Security Forces that are capable of maintaining and expanding security within Somalia, confronting international security threats such as piracy and terrorism, and preventing human rights abuses. U.S. military-to-military cooperation offers an important opportunity to build critical capacities that are accountable to civilian authorities and adhere to the tenets of human rights within the Somali National Security Forces and to build relationships in order to promote a strong future partnership. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to pursue military-to-military cooperation with the Somali National Security Forces through existing authorities as soon as practicable. In pursuit of that objective, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to formulate a strategy for military-to- military cooperation, including security assistance, professional military education, information sharing, and training between the U.S. armed forces and the Somali National Security Forces. The strategy should include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (1) identification of specific U.S. national security objectives addressed through military-to-military cooperation activities; (2) identification of mechanisms for coordinating U.S. security cooperation with other international donors, notably the European Union Training Mission; (3) a strategy for ensuring that military-to-military cooperation serves to enhance integration and coherence of the Somali National Security Services, including improving multi-ethnic representation, strengthening unit coherence and chain of command, and bolstering civilian control of the Somali armed forces; (4) an evaluation of unmet equipment and weaponry needs of the Somali armed forces, as well as an assessment of the ability of the Somali Armed Forces to maintain custody and accountability of its weapons inventory and of the benefits and risks of the provision of weaponry to the Somali armed forces by the United States; (5) an assessment of the security risks to U.S. personnel conducting security cooperation activities within Somalia; (6) an assessment of the ability of the Somali National Security Forces to maintain control of any equipment and deny violent extremists access to it; (7) plans for integrating training to prevent human rights abuses into military-to-military cooperation activities; (8) plans to assist the Somali National Security Forces in preventing infiltration and insider attacks, including through the application of lessons learned in U.S. military training efforts in Afghanistan; and (9) any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate. Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The report may take the form of a briefing, unclassified report, or unclassified report with a classified annex, as the Secretary deems appropriate. Status of United States military engagements with Burma The committee notes the developments in Burma over the past year or so that indicate the commitment by the Government of Burma toward democratization and to address human rights abuses, including abuses by the Burmese military. As a result of these developments, the Department of Defense has begun modest and measured military-to-military interactions with the Burmese military. While such military engagement activities can be positive reinforcement for meaningful reforms, the committee remains mindful of the history of human rights abuses within the Burmese military, concerns regarding continuing abuses, and the possibility that any well-intended U.S. military engagement could be misdirected toward a negative result. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide written updates to the relevant congressional committees on the status of military-to-military engagement between the United States armed forces and the Burmese military. The first such update shall be provided by September 30, 2013, and the next update by March 31, 2014. These updates, which may be in the form of a written report or in the form of a briefing that includes a written description of activities, shall include at a minimum: (1) a written list of ongoing military-to-military activities with a description of each; (2) a written update on activities that were listed in previous reporting; (3) a written list of activities that are planned to occur over the upcoming months with a written description of each; and (4) the status of the Burmese military's cooperation with civilian authorities to investigate and resolve cases of military human rights violations. For purposes of this requirement, the relevant congressional committees include the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. Taiwan air power assessment Section 1281 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) expressed the sense of Congress that the President should take steps to address Taiwan's shortfall in fighters, whether through the sale of F- 16C/D fighters or the procurement of other aircraft. The conference report accompanying Public Law 112-239 also requires the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to ensure that a briefing is prepared and made available to congressional defense committees that sets forth the administration's plan for meeting the statutory requirements of the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8) as they relate to how the Taiwan Air Force can contribute appropriately to Taiwan's defense. This briefing has yet to be presented to the Congress. Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to brief the congressional defense committees no later than July 15, 2013. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a classified report assessing the capabilities and readiness of the Taiwanese Air Force no later than December 1, 2013. The classified report shall include: a qualitative assessment of the capabilities of each type of fixed wing tactical aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory; an assessment of the readiness of each type of fixed wing tactical aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory; and the expected timeframe of obsolescence of each category of aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory compared to the People's Liberation Army Air Force fixed-wing aircraft in both quantity and quality. TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec. 1301) The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. Funding allocations (sec. 1302) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $528.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. The provision accounts for the change in the umbrella agreement with Russia ending June 17, 2013, in which the following programs will be terminated (as compared to being funded as proposed in the fiscal year 2014 budget request): (1) SS-24 Missile Disassembly and storage, $4.3 million, (2) Chemical Weapons Technical Support--Russia, $21.3 million, (3) Nuclear Security Enhancements--Russia, $4.0 million, and (4) Nuclear Weapons Transportation--Russia, $49.7 million. The resulting cancellation of funds ($79.3 million) transfers $62.3 million to the Proliferation Prevention Program for Middle East cooperative threat reduction activities to prevent and detect acquisition, proliferation, and use of Syria's chemical weapons, weapons-usable and related materials, equipment or means of delivery, and knowledge. This activity will continue partnerships with Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Lebanon. $13.0 million is transferred to Chemical Weapons Eliminations--Libya/Middle East to prepare for potential requirements in Syria if the U.S. Government has a Syrian partner with whom to work to potentially secure and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. $4.0 million is transferred to the Threat Reduction Engagement Program for exercises and bilateral workshops with Russia that does not require the expiring CTR umbrella agreement to carry out. 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 2014 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 2014 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR program element. TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS Subtitle A--Military Programs Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1403) 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. 1404) 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. 1405) 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. 1406) 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--Other Matters Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $67.8 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014 from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 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. 1422) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer $143.1 million from the Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense- Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) for the operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center. Budget Items Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan The budget request for the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General (DOD IG) included $311.1 million in Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The committee recognizes that the independent audit and investigative functions of the DOD IG continues to play a valuable role in identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in Department of Defense programs and operations. In fiscal year 2012, DOD IG audits and investigations resulted in a $3.6 billion return on investment, which is an increase of $1.0 billion in returns compared to fiscal year 2011. A $3.6 billion return on investment equates to a return of $2.3 million per employee and $10.81 for every dollar appropriated. The 147 reports issued in fiscal year 2012 led to 149 arrests, 247 convictions, 126 suspensions, and 207 debarments. The committee continues to believe that the DOD IG should focus on conducting oversight related to military operations in Afghanistan, review contract management and acquisitions, and support audits to identify potential waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee also believes that contractor oversight by the DOD IG should include detailed accounting of the number of personnel used and the capabilities provided by contractors. The committee notes that in the language of Senate Report 112- 173, to accompany S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) the committee directed the DOD IG to reevaluate the 2008 growth plan and establish future staffing objectives on the basis of audit and investigation need and current budgetary realities. The committee received an updated growth plan on May 15, 2013, which calls for a fiscal year 2018 end state of 1,900 versus 2,061 full-time equivalents (FTE), 161 less than originally planned; a 7.8 percent downward adjustment. The committee notes this end state still represents an increase of 286 FTEs over the fiscal year 2013 authorized FTE level of 1,614, and will allow for substantive increases in the DOD IG's oversight capabilities. The committee also notes that the DOD IG budget request for fiscal year 2014 still falls $35.9 million short of their requirements for increased oversight capabilities. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.9 million in O&M for the DOD IG. Defense Health Program funding The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense Health Program includes the following change from the budget request. This addition would replace savings assumed by the Department of Defense (DOD) for proposed establishment of enrollment fees and increases to certain other TRICARE fees, which the committee did not adopt. [Changes in millions of dollars] Restore DOD assumed savings for TRICARE proposals................. 218.0 Total......................................................... 218.0 Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities The budget request included $816.0 million to support the Department of Defense's (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities. Of those amounts, $19.9 million supported the Joint Interagency Task Force-West (JIATF-W, project code 3309); $1.6 million supported the United States European Command's (EUCOM) headquarters (project code 2346); and $1.2 million for special operations forces counternarcotics (CN) support to EUCOM (project code 6505). The committee recommends a decrease of $5.8 million to DOD's Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities, which will decrease by $3.0 million funding for the JIATF-W, and provide no funding for the two aforementioned programs at EUCOM. The committee understands the importance of interagency cooperation, particularly as it relates to CN and efforts to combat the related threats posed by transnational organized criminal organizations. However, the committee is concerned the JIATF-W and its associated activities are not fully integrated into the intelligence, and policy and planning directorates of United States Pacific Command (PACOM). As result, the committee believes that there is duplication in these two important areas. The committee urges the Commander of PACOM to review JIATF-W's activities and eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort within the PACOM's CN, intelligence, and capacity- building activities. On the reductions to EUCOM, the committee has noted since 2012 its concern with DOD's efforts to maintain CN programs at EUCOM. The committee believes partner nations within the EUCOM area of responsibility are best positioned to fund both intelligence activities and capacity building on their own. As such, the committee is eliminating funding for EUCOM's CN programs and urges the Secretary to approve no funding for these programs in the next fiscal year. Items of Special Interest Army industrial operations activity group The committee notes that recent analysis on the Army industrial operations activity group conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed that the Army needs to improve the budgeting and management of carryover. The committee remains concerned that the Army underestimated industrial operations new orders every year during a 7-year period of review by the GAO, from a low of 11 percent to a high of 70 percent. For orders funded with procurement appropriations, the Army underestimated new orders by 118 percent for the 7-year period. The committee is also concerned that the carryover grew to $5.8 billion in fiscal year 2011. The three primary causes for the carryover were: (1) the scope of work was not well defined, (2) parts needed to perform the work were not available, and (3) some orders were received late in the fiscal year which provided little time to resolve any scope of work or parts issues. The committee notes that the arrival of direct appropriation funding late in a fiscal year only exacerbates the ability to effectively manage carryover. The committee has learned that the Army has recently formed a working group to resolve these budgeting and management issues. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Army to promptly finalize the working group results and implement the actions identified to improve the budgeting and management of carryover. The committee directs the Army to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on their progress no later than September 15, 2013. Concerns with working capital fund cash balances and fuel rate pricing The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to struggle with the management of cash balances and carryover in working capital funds (WCF), resulting in increased risk and unnecessary negative impacts to Operation and Maintenance funding due to inadequate fuel rate determinations. For several years now the Government Accountability Office has documented the DOD's significant cash fluctuation in multiple reports. The committee notes that the effect of sequestration as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, the recent string of late-arriving annual appropriations, and the volatile global price of fossil fuels only exacerbate the issue. The committee remains concerned that while the function of the WCF is designed to protect customer programs in the year of execution, the reality of the last several years is that frequently changing WCF rates and reprogramming requests have evolved from exceptions to common practice. For example, in 2009 the standard composite fuel price charged to DOD customers changed five times, and at least once per year since 2005. Additionally, in fiscal year 2012 the committee received a reprogramming request for $1.0 billion to offset a change in fuel rates. A similar reprogramming request occurred in fiscal year 2013 for $1.4 billion. The committee notes that the DOD bases its fuel rate charged to the services from the Office of Management and Budget's set price for a refined barrel of fuel based on an estimated future market price projection. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the 7-10 day window has not been effective in enabling the services to adapt and absorb WCF rate changes in fuel and transportation costs in the budget year of execution, resulting in negative impacts to readiness, specifically in the Operation and Maintenance accounts. Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2014 with recommendations as to how the DOD can better determine and manage their WCF and fuel rates in the budget year of execution. Joint Interagency Task Force--South Sequestration and budget restrictions are having a negative impact not only on readiness and modernization accounts, but also on the ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to carry out ongoing missions. While DOD's decision to allocate scarce budgetary resources to forces engaged with the enemy in Afghanistan is both understandable and justifiable, that decision has had a significant impact on the operations of other combatant commands. For example, budgetary restrictions have drastically reduced the ability of DOD and partner agencies to allocate assets--particularly surface vessels and personnel to the Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF--South) mission of countering illicit drug trafficking and disruption of transnational criminal organizations in the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of responsibility, thereby increasing the supply of narcotics hitting U.S. streets at the same time that state and local law enforcement are also seeing funding reductions. During his March 2013 testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, General John F. Kelly, Commander of SOUTHCOM, warned that sequestration could hinder the ability of SOUTHCOM to detect and monitor the flow of drugs to the United States, support the counterdrug efforts of partner nations, and curtail counternarcotics air and surface operations. He said, ``[t]aken together, these limitations would undermine the significant gains we have made through the highly successful and ongoing Operation Martillo; the 152 metric tons of cocaine seized to date represents over $3.0 billion in revenue that will not go to fund powerful criminal groups, violence in Mexico, and the destabilization of our Central American partners. These 152 metric tons will also not reach the streets of America nor fuel costly crime and drug addiction.'' The committee believes that the across-the-board sequestration cuts to the DOD budget are arbitrary and irrational and undermine the national security of the United States. In the absence of legislation removing the threat of continued sequestration, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to do as much as practicable to continue key operations of the geographic combatant commands, such as the counternarcotics mission of SOUTHCOM and JIATF--South. National Guard Counterdrug Program The committee notes that the Department of Defense 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 believes this support has proven effective in helping to meet national counterdrug objectives. The committee notes that over the last 2 fiscal years, budgetary pressures have led the Department to decrease the budget request for the CDP. The committee understands that these cuts have caused a disruption or curtailment of CDP operations, including the activities of the five regional Counterdrug Training Centers. As such, the committee encourages the Department to continue its support for the CDP and provide adequate funding to ensure the sustainability of the program. Additionally, the committee notes that beginning in 2008, the National Guard Bureau began development of a threat-based approach to its counterdrug activities. The committee supported this initiative and, in fiscal year 2011, DOD approved the Threat-Based Resource Model (TBRM) and began implementation of the new construct in fiscal year 2012, with plans to achieve full implementation by fiscal year 2015. The basis of the TBRM construct is to align funding in support of state counterdrug plans based on an analytical assessment of security threats associated with narcotics trafficking. In prepared testimony submitted to Congress in 2012, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau stated: ``the implementation of the [TBRM] budget will strengthen the National Guard's national security capability by allocating resources to all states and territories based on the severity of the narcotics threat faced by each state.'' As implementation of the TBRM continues, the committee urges the National Guard Bureau to ensure that the data, metrics, and analyses associated with the TBRM are reliable, clearly articulated, transparent, and reflect the changing nature of narcotics trafficking activities. In addition, the committee urges the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to cooperate and share information associated with the TBRM in a routine, systemic manner with relevant interagency partners, particularly the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Agency. 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. Procurement (sec. 1502) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for procurement at the levels identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act. Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act. Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for operation and maintenance at the levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. Military personnel (sec. 1505) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. Working capital funds (sec. 1506) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1507) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1508) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense, at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1509) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for drug interdiction and counter- drug activities, defense-wide, at the level identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Defense Inspector General (sec. 1510) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Defense Health program (sec. 1511) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Subtitle B--Financial Matters Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) The committee recommends a provision that would state that amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related funding authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title. Subtitle C--Other Matters Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531) The committee recommends a provision that would extend until December 31, 2014, the authority for the Secretary of Defense to use funds to investigate, develop, and provide equipment, supplies, services, personnel, and funds to assist efforts to defeat improvised explosive devices (IED). The committee continues to maintain that the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is a temporary organization created by the Department of Defense (DOD), with the support of Congress, to respond rapidly to IED threats against our deployed forces. The committee believes it is now the appropriate time for DOD to assess the roles and missions of JIEDDO and DOD in maintaining a capability to counter the IED threat. The committee believes the military departments can absorb into their operations and doctrine the appropriate capabilities and training required to counter the threat posed by IED in current and future operations. JIEDDO, in its various iterations, has now been in existence for nearly a decade, and the military departments have had ample time to plan accordingly. As such, the committee has extended this authority until the end of calendar year 2014--when operations in Afghanistan will reach an inflection point. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to develop a clear strategy to ensure the military departments absorb the enduring capabilities and associated funding that JIEDDO has benefitted from over the past decade. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, on the disposition of JIEDDO as an organization and a strategy that identifies and transitions those enduring capabilities and associated funding to the military departments. Further, the report will also address what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure adequate coordination across the military departments and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in their science and technology activities related to defeating IEDs in order to focus on priority areas and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532) The committee recommends a provision that would require that funds available for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund for fiscal year 2014 be used 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; 122 Stat. 428), as amended by section 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4424). The provision would also allow for equipment previously transferred to the Afghanistan security forces to be returned to the stocks of the Department of Defense (DOD) with congressional notification. The Secretary of Defense would be required to report to the congressional defense committees semi-annually on the equipment transferred to DOD stocks under this authority. Extension of authority for Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1533) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the authority of the Department of Defense Task Force for Business and Stability Operations (TFBSO) in Afghanistan to promote strategic business and economic development in support of the civil-military campaign in Afghanistan. For fiscal year 2014, up to $63.8 million would be authorized to fund TFBSO projects, which include mining sector development, industrial development, and facilitating private investment. The provision would restrict the availability of the fiscal year 2014 funds for developing the mining and oil and gas sectors until after the Secretary of Defense certifies that the Government of Afghanistan has agreed to reimburse the Government of the United States for the amount of any such funds, from royalties received from mining or oil and gas contracts awarded by the Government of Afghanistan. The amendment would also revise the period for providing an update on the implementation of the TFBSO Transition Action Plan that was submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives in May 2012 from every 90 days to every 180 days. The TFBSO has contributed to the stability of Afghanistan's economy, particularly the development of its mining sector. However, the committee strongly believes that TFBSO funds for the development of Afghanistan's mining should not go towards subsidizing the ability of foreign companies, in particular the Chinese mineral extraction industry, to exploit the estimated $1.0 trillion worth of Afghanistan resources. The committee believes that companies who mine Afghanistan's rare earth minerals should be the ones investing in the mining infrastructure of Afghanistan. Further, the committee expects that with the transition of full security responsibility to the Government of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, the activities of the TFBSO will transition, either to another U.S. Government department or agency or to the Government of Afghanistan, or be promptly concluded. Budget Items NATO Special Operations Headquarters The budget request for overseas contingency operations included $7.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). As requested by the Department of Defense and consistent with the agreement between the Army and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the April 2013 Resource Management Decision transferring resourcing responsibility from the Army to USSOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of this funding to Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. BuckEye The budget request included $29.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) for Overseas Contingency Operations, of which $1.3 billion was for forces readiness operations support. The committee understands that the Army's funding request for the BuckEye system that provides high-resolution 3- dimensional terrain data (10 centimeter electro-optical color imagery, combined with 1-meter post spacing elevation data) was eliminated during budget reviews due to a misunderstanding about the enduring requirement for this data or about the availability of alternative sources of such data. The Department of Defense has assured the committee that U.S. Central Command's Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement for five systems remains in effect through fiscal year 2014, and that no other available system can provide this data. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $56.3 million in OMA (subactivity 121) for BuckEye terrain data. Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization The budget request included $1.0 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, of which funding is distributed to four lines of operation (LOO): (1) $417.0 million for Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization's (JIEDDO) operations attacking the network; (2) $248.9 million for JIEDDO's operations to develop and procure capabilities to defeat improvised explosive devices (IED); (3) $106.0 million to fund efforts to train service members prior to deployment on counter-IED tactics, techniques, and procedures; and (4) $227.4 million for JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure expenses. The committee recommends the following modification's to JIEDDO's budget: (1) a decrease of $106.0 million for JIEDDO's training activities; (2) a decrease $45.0 million for JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure expenses; (3) an increase of $80.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army within the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account to train soldiers prior to deployment on counter-IED tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs); and (4) an increase of $26.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps within the OCO account to train marines prior to deployment on counter-IED TTPs. It is the committee's view that JIEDDO's train-the-force activities should be terminated. These activities are the responsibilities of the military departments and JIEDDO should no longer support them. As such, the committee's recommendation would eliminate funding for JIEDDO's train-the-force operations and redistribute the funding to Army and Marine Corps operation and maintenance accounts for counter-IED training activities. The committee's second reduction to JIEDDO's budget would require the Director of JIEDDO to reduce the size of its overhead. As such, the committee recommendation would make a 20 percent reduction to JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure LOO. Many of JIEDDO's headquarters activities duplicate identical or similar processes that already exist within the various military departments or the Office of the Secretary of Defense. As such, the committee directs the Director of JIEDDO to identify elements of those organizations to assume these tasks. Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund The budget request included $62.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance (OM), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of which $279.0 million was for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (AIF) in fiscal year 2014 to support a program to develop and construct large-scale infrastructure projects that support the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. The committee's concerns about the need to transition responsibility for large- scale infrastructure project management from the Department of Defense to the Government of Afghanistan or an Afghan Government-owned utility company are discussed in another title of this Act. In this regard, the committee understands that the Afghan power utility company, Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS), has begun planning to assume responsibility for the operation of the diesel generators supplying electricity to the Kandahar City area. The committee expects DABS to assume a portion of the costs of operating the Kandahar diesel generators in fiscal year 2014 and to assume the full costs associated with the operation of the generators in fiscal years 2015 and beyond. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.0 million for OM, OCO, for AIF, to a level of $250.0 million. Item of Special Interest Counter improvised explosive device training The Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 2000.19E establishing the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) requires the Director of JIEDDO to ``[d]evelop and manage, within the military service combat training centers, a distributed Joint Center of Excellence (CoE) for the development of new operational techniques and tactical procedures, and provide a venue for training, experimentation, and testing of new equipment and concepts.'' As the committee awaits the reports required pursuant to section 1535 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), the committee directs the Secretary to undertake as part of that assessment a review of DOD Directive 2000.19E to ensure that the synchronizing function across the military departments and defense agencies is preserved so that lessons-learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not lost and that the investments made by DOD over the past decade, where appropriate, are preserved and maintained. 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. Funding for base closure projects is summarized in title XXVII of this report and is explained in additional detail in the table included in title XLVI of this report. The fiscal year 2014 budget requested $11.01 billion for military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $8.65 billion was requested for military construction, $1.54 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $451.4 million for base closure activities. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for military construction, housing programs, and base closure activities totaling $9.67 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 2014''. Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by law (sec. 2002) The committee recommends a provision that would establish the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program as of October 1, 2016, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. TITLE XXI-- ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION Summary The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.1 billion for military construction and $556.9 million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1.1 billion for military construction and $540.3 million for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The committee understands the Department of Defense is currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission requirements. The budget requests $16.6 million for construction of 29 new family housing units at Camp Vilseck, Germany. The committee believes authorization of this project would presume the outcome of the Department's European Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, therefore, recommends no funding for this project. 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 2014. 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 2014. 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 2014 in this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the Army. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 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 2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4437) for construction of a Regional Logistic Support Complex at Fort Lewis, Washington. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project (sec. 2105) The committee recommends a provision that would modify the authorization contained in section 2101(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2629) for construction of APS Warehouses at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2004 project (sec. 2106) 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; 117 Stat. 1697) for construction of an Explosives Research and Development Loading Facility at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 projects (sec. 2107) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the fiscal year 2011 authorization for four projects until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec. 2108) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the fiscal year 2010 authorization for three projects until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2109) The budget request includes $42.0 million to fund the second increment of the cadet barracks at the U.S. Military Academy (USMA), New York. The committee remains concerned about the condition of the existing barracks at the USMA and believes that renovation of those barracks should be a high priority for the Secretary of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds for the second increment of USMA barracks construction, as requested, until the Secretary of the Army certifies to the congressional defense committees that the Secretary has entered into a contract for the renovation of MacArthur Short Barracks at the USMA, consistent with the plan provided to the congressional defense committees in March 2013. Items of Special Interest Access Control Point Equipment Program The committee notes that the Army has requested $30.3 million for its Access Control Point Equipment Program (ACPEP) which would be installed at five Army installations. The committee further notes that Recommendation 3.9 of the Fort Hood commission report states that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to improve its ability to screen contractors coming onto military installations. Specifically, the report recommended that DOD ``accelerate efforts to automate access control that will authenticate various identification media against authoritative databases'' and ``obtain sufficient access to appropriate threat databases and disseminate information to local commanders to enable screening at continental United States and overseas installation access control points.'' The committee notes that the Navy has used U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and DOD approved solutions to implement its access control requirements to military installations that provide electronic verification for enhanced security for contractors requiring access to military installations by sharing the cost of implementation with the contractors. The committee notes that the Army may save resources by adopting existing GSA-approved solutions for base access control. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review existing GSA-approved access control programs in use at DOD installations and report to the committee with a cost-benefit analysis of using current installation force protection practices versus further deployment of the ACPEP. Comptroller General review of litigation costs incurred by the Military Housing Privatization Initiative The committee notes that over the past 12 years, the Department of the Army has entered into a series of transactions with various partners to construct, renovate, maintain, and operate most of the Army's military family housing unit inventory in the United States. While this military family housing privatization initiative (MHPI) has resulted in successful partnerships between the Army and the private sector to significantly improve the quality of housing offered to military members and their families over a relatively short period of time, the long-term success of this program depends on maintaining the quality of those homes in order to continue to attract and retain military occupants. The Army and their partners jointly manage a series of operations and investment accounts to fund maintenance, repairs, and the recapitalization of housing units for this purpose. Section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) was intended to strengthen the oversight of MHPI by implementing a series of financial integrity and accountability measures. The provision also required the Secretary of Defense to submit expanded reports to Congress on expenditures and receipts related to MHPI. It is the committee's expectation that funds generated from the original transactions are being appropriately reinvested in activities that directly benefit military members and their families living in the privatized housing. The committee notes that the provision described above was also written to provide a greater degree of transparency on those withdrawals and expenditures that do not have a direct benefit to military families. The committee believes that the use of funds to pay for internal litigation costs associated with lawsuits between private entities involved with MHPI should be among those withdrawals and expenditures reported to Congress. In addition, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States, not later than October 30, 2013, to carry out a complete review of the costs incurred to the various Army MHPI accounts as a result of unique litigation activities. The review should include, at a minimum, the following: (1) a description of actions taken by the Department of the Army to minimize the use of MHPI funds for unique litigation; (2) a description of documentation provided to the Army by its partners to justify legal expenses; (3) a review of the internal Army and partner processes used to approve major withdrawals and expenses for litigation; (4) an assessment of the applicable Army guidance or transactional documentation governing potential withdrawals or expenditures for litigation expenses; (5) an assessment of the impact of litigation expenses associated with specific projects on the availability of funding for purposes directly beneficial to such projects; (6) an estimate of the total costs to Army MHPI projects that have been incurred to date and the extent to which the Army has estimated any future litigation expenses; (7) a review of plans to replenish MHPI asset management accounts impacted by withdrawals and expenses for litigation; and (8) any other subject matter that the Comptroller General may deem appropriate on this subject. TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION Summary The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.7 billion for military construction and $463.2 million for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1.61 billion for military construction and $463.2 million for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The budget requested $85.7 million for an Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at the North Ramp of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Because of continuing concerns with the realignment of United States Marines from Okinawa to Guam, addressed later in a recommended provision in this title, the committee recommends no funding for this project. Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal year 2014. 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 2014. 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 2014 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 2014 in this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family housing projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project (sec. 2205) The committee recommends a provision that would modify the authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1666) for construction of Explosives Handling Wharf No. 2 at Kitsap, Washington. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2206) The committee recommends a provision that would modify the authorization contained in section 2201(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4441), for construction of Navy Central Command ammunition magazines in Bahrain. One-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2207) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. Two-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2208) 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. Item of Special Interest Townsend Bombing Range land acquisition The committee notes that the budget request includes $61.7 million to acquire real estate interests as the first phase of an expansion of the Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia in order to support the training of Navy and Marine Corps aviators in air-to-ground employment of precision guided munitions. Considering the fact that the first phase of the expansion will require the purchase of approximately 20,000 acres, the committee commends the Department of the Navy for its efforts to engage community representatives from Long County, Georgia and McIntosh County, Georgia and supports efforts for a mutually acceptable agreement regarding use of the real property to be acquired for the expansion of the Townsend Bombing Range that protects and supports the mission of the range. TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION Summary The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.2 billion for military construction and $464.9 million for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $964.2 million for military construction and $464.9 million for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The budget requested $132.6 million for a hardened tanker aircraft maintenance hangar and $20.0 million for the construction of hardened structures around existing and new fuel systems buildings at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The committee believes that the authorization of these projects would presume the outcome of U.S. Pacific Command's completion of a comprehensive operational resiliency study and, therefore, recommends no funding for these projects. The committee understands the Department of Defense is currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission requirements. The budget requested $22.0 million for Guardian Angel Operations Facilities at Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath, United Kingdom, and $12.0 million for a Main Gate Complex at Royal Air Force Station Croughton, United Kingdom. The committee believes that the authorization of these projects would presume the outcome of the Department's European Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, therefore, recommends no funding for these projects. The budget requested $192.7 million for KC-46A Main Operating Base (MOB) #1 facilities and $63.0 million for KC-46A Formal Training Unit (FTU) facilities at unspecified locations. On May 22, 2013, the Air Force announced McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, as its preferred alternative for the KC-46A MOB #1 and Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, as its preferred alternative for the KC-46A FTU. Concurrent with this announcement, the Air Force also requested an amendment to its budget request specifying location-specific requirements for KC-46A bed down, including $219.1 million for eight military construction projects at McConnell Air Force Base and $30.9 million for five military construction projects at Altus Air Force Base. The committee recommends these amounts. 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 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by- installation basis. Family housing (sec. 2302) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize new construction and planning and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2014. 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. 2303) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize funding for fiscal year 2014 to improve existing Air Force family housing units. Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2305) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION Summary The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $4.0 billion for military construction for the defense agencies, $150.0 million for energy conservation projects, $122.5 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and $55.8 million for family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $2.9 billion for military construction, $150.0 million for energy conservation projects, $122.5 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and $55.8 million for family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2014. The committee understands the Department of Defense (DOD) is currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission requirements. The budget requested $17.7 million to replace fuel storage systems, $11.6 million for a squadron operations facility, $24.4 million for a hangar, $24.0 million for airfield improvements, and $6.8 million for storage facilities at Royal Air Force Station Mildenhall, United Kingdom. The budget also requested: $49.9 million for an elementary school at Kaiserslautern Military Community, Germany; $98.8 million for a high school at Ramstein Air Base, Germany; $58.9 million for an elementary school and $50.7 million for a middle school at Wiesbaden, Germany; and $69.6 million for a high school at Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath. The committee believes that the authorization of these projects would presume the outcome of the Department's European Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, therefore, recommends no funding for these projects. The budget requested $431.0 million for the third increment of the High Performance Computing Center at Fort Meade, Maryland. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $50.0 million reduction. The budget requested $265.0 million for an Ambulatory Health Center at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $190.0 million reduction. The budget requested $210.0 million for replacement of the Public Health Command Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $135.0 million reduction. The budget requested $76.2 million for the second increment of the Ambulatory Care Center at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $38.1 million reduction. The budget requested $251.2 million for the fifth increment of the Hospital Replacement at Fort Bliss, Texas. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $152.1 million reduction. The budget requested $151.5 million for the third increment of the Medical Center Replacement at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $75.0 million reduction. The budget requested $1.8 million for a Tour Bus Drop Off at the Pentagon Reservation, Virginia. The committee believes this project is unjustified given the current fiscal pressures facing DOD and does little to improve the safety of visitors to the Pentagon and, therefore, recommends no funding for this project. 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 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family housing projects for the defense agencies. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 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 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM Summary The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $239.7 million for military construction in fiscal year 2014 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization facilities. The committee recommends a total of $239.7 million for military construction for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization facilities. Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously financed by the United States. Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $239.7 million for the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2014. TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES Summary The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $693.3 million for military construction in fiscal year 2014 for facilities for the guard and reserve components. The committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state list table included in this report. Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2602) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by- location basis. Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 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 of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 2611) The committee recommends a provision that would modify the authorization contained in section 2603 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 2135), for construction of a Joint Reserve Center at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 2612) The committee recommends a provision that would extend the fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 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, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES Summary and explanation of tables The budget request included $451.4 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 2014 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. Precondition for any future base realignment and closure round (sec. 2702) The committee recommends a provision that would establish, as a precondition for the authorization of a future Base Realignment and Closure round, a requirement for the Department of Defense to submit to Congress a formal review of overseas military facility structure. Report on 2005 base closure and realignment joint basing initiative (sec. 2703) The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round created 12 joint bases from 26 service installations that were in close proximity or shared a boundary. While the Department of Defense (DOD) originally planned to save $2.3 billion over 20 years through these consolidations, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the 20-year savings estimate has fallen by nearly 90 percent to approximately $249.0 million. GAO has further noted that: ``it is unclear whether DOD has achieved any significant cost savings to date, in part due to its adoption of more costly common support standards, higher projected administrative costs, and weaknesses in its approach to tracking costs and estimated savings.'' However, GAO has suggested that DOD may still be able to achieve significant savings through the adoption of ``a more rigorous and comprehensive department-wide approach to managing this initiative.'' The committee recommends a provision that would require the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on the 2005 BRAC joint basing initiative. At a minimum, the report should include: (1) an analysis and explanation of the costs necessary to implement the joint basing initiative; (2) an analysis and explanation of any savings achieved to date and planned in future years, including quantifiable goals and a timeline for meeting such goals; (3) a description of implementation challenges and other lessons learned; (4) an assessment of any additional savings that could be achieved through more rigorous management and streamlined administration of joint bases; and (5) any other matters the Under Secretary considers appropriate. TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes Modification of authorities to fund military construction through payments-in-kind and to use residual value payments-in-kind (sec. 2801) The committee released a report on April 15, 2013, titled ``Inquiry into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support the U.S. Military Presence Overseas.'' Among other things, the committee's inquiry found that in-kind payments 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. Given the current fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense (DOD), it is critical that in-kind payments be utilized for identified U.S. priorities to offset costs that DOD would otherwise pay with appropriated funds. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would require that all future military construction projects funded using in-kind payments pursuant to bilateral agreements with partner nations be submitted for congressional authorization in the Military Construction Authorization Act. This provision would exclude projects funded using in-kind payments under the Facility Improvement Program in Japan, since it is a voluntary program, not a program conducted pursuant to a bilateral agreement. The provision would also exclude from the requirement for congressional authorization particular military construction projects identified in bilateral agreements entered into before the date of enactment. However, that exclusion would not extend to general references to replacement facilities such as those contained in the U.S.-Korea Land Partnership Plan. Furthermore, the committee strongly encourages DOD, when using any future in-kind payments from partner nations, to first consider and prioritize operational expenses and facilities restoration, sustainment, and modernization improvements ahead of military construction. The recommended provision would also require that DOD include operational expenses funded through residual value payments in-kind in the budget justification documents submitted to Congress in connection with the annual budget request. Extension and modification of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2802) The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the United States for an additional year and revise the list of countries in which such authority may be used in the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) area of responsibility (AOR). If the Secretary of Defense determines that expansion of this authority to additional countries in the AFRICOM AOR is necessary, the committee asks that the Department submit a formal legislative proposal and justification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration Authority for acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses associated with real property leases and easements (sec. 2811) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to allow for the use of proceeds from leases and easements to be used to offset administrative costs incurred by the military departments in entering into and managing such leases and easements. Application of cash payments received for utilities and services (sec. 2812) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the secretaries of the military departments, beginning in fiscal year 2014, to credit cash payments received as compensation for utilities or services provided to eligible entities that operate family or military unaccompanied housing projects to the appropriation or working capital account currently available for the purpose of furnishing such utilities or services. This provision was requested by the Department of Defense to ensure that such reimbursements remain available in current appropriations to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense rather than being credited to an expired account, making them unusable. Modification of authority to enter into long-term contracts for receipt of utility services as consideration for utility systems conveyances (sec. 2813) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2688(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of a military department, prior to conveying a utility system under this section, to obtain an independent estimate of the level of investment that should be required to maintain adequate operation of the utility system over the term of the conveyance. Acquisition of real property at Naval Base Ventura County, California (sec. 2814) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to acquire 300 units of military family housing constructed under section 801 of the Military Construction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-115) at Naval Base Ventura County, California. The committee understands this housing would be acquired for the purposes of converting it to meet an enduring need for transient and unaccompanied housing. 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 a prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan, with certain exceptions. Modification of reporting requirements relating to Guam realignment (sec. 2822) The committee recommends a provision that would modify the reporting period for the annual Guam realignment report from calendar year to fiscal year. 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 11 acres of Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, to the Hale Keiki School in return for a cash payment, in-kind consideration, or a combination thereof, in an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the conveyed property, as determined pursuant to an appraisal acceptable to the Secretary. Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial transfer (sec. 2832) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to sell or exchange the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, to an eligible entity on the condition that it continues to be maintained as a veterans' memorial. Subtitle E--Other Matters Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (sec. 2841) The committee recommends a provision that would name the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies at Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ``Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies'' and make other conforming changes. Items of Special Interest Department of Defense policy for sustainable buildings The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD) commitment to promote a policy for sensible and cost-effective sustainable designs for DOD facilities to reduce life cycle costs and provide for efficient and effective support of military missions. However, the committee is concerned that the Department's revision of the Unified Facilities Code (UFC) issued in March 2013 regarding High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements included direction to DOD components to design all new construction and major renovation projects to meet a specific third party certification. The committee is concerned that the UFC exclusively references a single certification to the exclusion of other green building certification systems. The committee recommends that the Department's revised policy should provide for an equal consideration of other sustainable building certification systems which provide design standards for cost-effective facilities, incorporate life cycle assessments, and are created through a voluntary consensus process or through international sustainable building codes. Homeowners Assistance Program The committee notes that the Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) was created in 1966 to provide monetary relief to eligible service members and federal employee homeowners who suffered financial loss on the sale of their primary residences when a base closure or realignment announcement created a decline in the residential real estate market and owners were not able to sell their homes under reasonable terms or conditions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) expanded the HAP to provide assistance to: (1) wounded members of the Armed Forces, surviving spouses of fallen warriors, and wounded Department of Defense (DOD) civilian homeowners reassigned in furtherance of medical treatment or rehabilitation or due to medical retirement in connection with their disability; (2) Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 impacted homeowners relocating during the mortgage crisis; and (3) service member homeowners given Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders by the Federal Government during the mortgage crisis. The committee notes that as of June 2013, HAP benefits totaling $1.6 billion have been paid to 9,940 applicants. However, the committee also understands that payments were made in error to at least 240 applicants totaling more than $4.5 million in improperly paid HAP benefits. The DOD, as required by law, is currently in the process of recovering these improperly paid benefits. The committee is concerned by the significant number of documented improper payments under HAP and questions the adequacy of the Department's process to vet and approve applications for such benefits. The committee is also concerned about the financial hardship for service members who received HAP payments in error and were subsequently directed to repay the Federal Government. In many cases, service members have made significant decisions with regard to selling a home based on their receipt of HAP benefits only to find out later that such benefits were provided in error and must be repaid. The committee notes that the Department has established a multi-phase review process for service members to challenge a determination by the Department that HAP benefits were provided improperly. The committee also notes that the Department may, in some cases, waive its right to collect repayment if the debt is a result of an erroneous payment and collection would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interest of the United States. The committee expects the Department, when it deems appropriate, to exercise this waiver. Military Construction Project Data Sheets The committee notes that the President's budget request is accompanied by Military Construction Project Data Sheets, also known as DD Form 1391 forms, containing the justification, scope, and cost of each requested military construction project. The congressional defense committees use each DD Form 1391 as the basis for reviewing the Department's military construction requirements, proposed new construction to meet each requirement, and limits of cost and scope of the project. The committee is aware that the Department considers the authorization of the proposed military construction project to be contract authority and the DD Form 1391 is used by the contracting officer to define the limits of that contract authority. The committee notes that the Department of Defense prepares DD Form 1391s with the intent of establishing flexibility within each congressional authorization of a military construction project in order for design agents, construction agents, and contracting officers to be able to make decisions about site adaptations, final scope, proposed methods of construction, and consideration of emerging requirements without the need for additional authorization from Congress. While the committee is aware of the need for some degree of flexibility in order to make efficient use of resources and to respond to unforeseen requirements that could not feasibly be discovered during preparation of the defense budget request, each military construction project should have a clearly defined primary scope and costs, an identified and characterized site, a clear estimate of the supporting utility and infrastructure scope and costs, and a mature plan for other considerations such as ancillary facilities and real property necessary to meet the requirement. To ensure this degree of certainty, Congress each year authorizes and appropriates funds to carry out planning and design activities without a congressional authorization for the construction of a project. The committee is concerned that the justification data provided for many projects in the budget request and accompanying DD Form 1391s does not contain information that is critical to its oversight of the scope and construction of such projects. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that each DD Form 1391 clearly and concisely defines the proposed scope of both the primary and supporting facilities and infrastructure that will result in a complete and useable facility without the need for a congressional authorization of additional construction. The Secretary shall also ensure that the proposed use of each facility, as represented by a five or six digit category code, is included in each DD Form 1391 and is not allowed to be changed during construction or immediately following construction. Each DD Form 1391 shall also include a proposed method of construction and a specification of the proposed design life of the construction method in order for Congress to be able to assess the Department's justification for the investment in comparison to the military requirement. Each DD Form 1391 shall also include information regarding the need for future phases, related construction, land acquisitions or leases, and other activities that will be required to be carried out as part of the military construction project. The committee strongly believes that clear, complete, and concise DD Form 1391s are critical to both the Department of Defense's effort to manage resources effectively and the integrity of the congressional authorization of military construction projects. Scope of work variations for military construction projects A February 27, 2012, report by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG), titled ``Guidance Needed to Prevent Military Construction Projects from Exceeding the Approved Scope of Work,'' found several instances where military construction projects in Afghanistan significantly exceeded the scope authorized by Congress. According to the DOD IG, ``DOD [Department of Defense] officials do not have assurance that military construction projects are built consistent with congressional intent and in accordance with legislative requirements.'' The DOD IG recommended: (1) the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment (DUSD(I&E)) issue clarification guidance to define the scope of work outlined in section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, that may not be exceeded; and (2) the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Director of the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment develop and implement procedures to perform scope verifications to ensure compliance with the law. Therefore, the committee directs the DUSD(I&E), not later than September 30, 2013, to provide the congressional defense committees a report describing actions taken in response to the February 2012 DOD IG report. Traffic safety The committee has seen anecdotal evidence that the frequency and severity of traffic accidents at some military installations have increased significantly in recent years. For example, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, traffic accidents have increased by more than 400 percent and injuries resulting from traffic accidents have increased by more than 200 percent since 2005. The committee is concerned that the increase in traffic accidents may be, at least partly, attributed to on-base transportation infrastructure projects not keeping pace with base population growth. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than September 30, 2013, regarding traffic accidents at installations with 25,000 or more permanently assigned service members, including: (1) an analysis of trends in on-base traffic accident data; (2) an assessment of whether transportation infrastructure projects have kept pace with growth in base populations at such installations; (3) an analysis of the factors contributing to traffic accidents on large military installations; (4) any recommendations for reducing the number of traffic accidents on large military installations; and (5) any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate. U.S. military posture and resiliency in the Asia-Pacific The committee remains interested in the posture of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region and the implications of the strategic rebalance announced as part of the Defense Strategic Guidance in January 2012. While this rebalance toward the Asia- Pacific encompasses more than just U.S. military presence and posture, the current and future U.S. military force posture in the Asia-Pacific region is a critical element of the overall geo-political security strategy in Asia. The committee understands that U.S. Pacific Command is currently conducting a study of resiliency and developing an associated resiliency plan as one element of the force posture and supporting infrastructure. The committee is reluctant to support new investments in infrastructure until it has reviewed the study and the plan and better understands both the linkage between resiliency and strategy and the long term affordability and sustainability of the plan. Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to provide the results of the U.S. Pacific Command's study of resiliency, with an explanation of how the resiliency plan supports the overall theater strategic plan, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 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 2014, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes appropriations in three categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental cleanup; and (3) other defense activities. The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the Department (rounded up to the first significant decimal point) totaled $17.8 billion, a 3.2 percent increase above the fiscal year 2013 appropriated level. Of the total amount requested: (1) $11.6 billion is for NNSA, of which: (a) $7.9 billion is for weapons activities; (b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; (c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors; and (d) $397.8 million is for the Office of the Administrator; (2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; (3) $749.1 million is for other defense activities; (4) $94.0 million for Idaho site-wide security; and (5) $16.0 million for grid security in the Office of Electricity and Transmission. The committee recommends $17.8 billion for atomic energy defense activities. Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: (1) $11.7 billion for NNSA, of which: (a) $7.9 billion is for weapons activities; (b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; (c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors, the amount of the budget request; and (d) $397.8 million is for the Office of the Administrator, the amount of the budget request; (2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup activities (based on not reauthorizing the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning fund); (3) $749.1 million is for other defense activities, the amount of the budget request; (4) $95.0 million is for Idaho site-wide security; and (5) $0 is provided for grid reliability as this is a homeland security function. National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a total of $11.7 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal year 2014 for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to national security. Weapons activities The committee recommends $7.9 billion for weapons activities, the amount of the budget request. The committee recommends funding for these programs as follows: $2.4 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.7 billion for campaigns; $1.7 billion for site stewardship; $744.5 million for nuclear operations; $219.2 million for the secure transportation assets, the amount of the budget request; $256.0 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget request; and $827.4 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 sustain these increases during a time of decreasing federal and defense budgets will be increasingly difficult as time goes on. Good stewardship of the funding, as well as the nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons complex, is critical to the long-term support for and sustainment of the projected increases. Directed stockpile work The committee recommends $2.4 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 2014, the W- 76 program has been corrected to meet the Navy's need by 2019 and has a proposed budget of $235.4 million. The B-61 is undergoing a life extension (Mod 12) that will make one variant reducing the number overall needed for the air leg of the triad. The funding for B-61 life extension program is proposed at $537.0 million. The committee understands the importance of the Mod 12 life extension but is concerned about meeting the 2019 deadline for the version deployed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and needs to know what backup plan, if any, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have to provide temporary lifetime extension of the existing weapons if the Mod 12 schedule slips, as it most likely will. The committee remains concerned about overall workflow coordination between the design laboratories and the production facilities, Pantex, Y-12, and Kansas City. There could be up to five life extension programs underway; the B-61, the long-range stand off weapon, the W-88 fuse program, an interoperable warhead to replace the W-88 and W-87 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. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee has asked the Government Accountability Office to examine this issue. Finally, the committee has concern about the overall cost growth of the interoperable warhead which is to replace the W- 88 and W-78 warheads. The total cost profile is not all clear nor is the balance of this cost profile with the risk of such a system, which will be certified primarily on computer models. The Navy's W-88 warhead is in relatively good condition and over $1.0 billion is being spent on a new fuse system for the warhead. Certain common-sense questions must be asked why this W-88 is being replaced by the interoperable system that is proposed. Campaigns The committee recommends $1.7 billion for campaigns. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, and the weapons production plants. Each campaign is focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the Department of Energy's annual certification that the stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear weapons testing. The committee remains concerned about the hurdles to ignition at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), as it is not at all clear what effect not achieving sustained burn or ignition will have on the stockpile stewardship program. NNSA needs to communicate clearly what the effects of this gap in knowledge will have on future computer calculations on the stockpile. The committee notes that as life extension programs take on more importance in the future years, the campaigns, particularly those associated with science, must not be put under pressure to curtail 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 committee by the three weapons laboratory directors and the National Academy of Sciences has supported the success of this program. Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations The committee recommends $2.4 billion for site stewardship and nuclear operations. These two programs comprised the former readiness in the technical base (RTBF). This account funds facilities and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex and includes construction funding for new facilities. The committee remains concerned about the additional increase of over $500.0 million for the main building to replace building 9212, while pushing the scope out for the other two phases to replace buildings 9215 and 9204-2E. The original top line cost estimate of $6.5 billion included all three phases. That appears not to be the case. So, in addition to the $500.0 million cost increase, the scope has been reduced or effectively the total cost has increased to a number that will far exceed the $6.5 billion top line. The committee still remains concerned about the technology and manufacturing readiness levels of the processing equipment that must go into the facility while it is still under design, particularly the microwave processing equipment. These readiness level issues should have been fully resolved before design of the facility was undertaken. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to continue quarterly reviews of this project to the congressional defense committees. With the deferral of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement project, the committee continues to be concerned about the lack of a long-term strategy for plutonium sustainment. Testimony by Dr. Charles F. McMillan before this committee indicated that a modular approach to a smaller series of buildings holds promise for lower costs and greater flexibility. The committee encourages the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Weapons Council to examine the business case for such a concept and if proven feasible, to proceed with engineering design and cost estimation. If a detailed cost estimate past an initial business case analysis is performed for this modular building approach, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office to review the detailed cost estimate. The committee is supportive of the High Explosives Pressing Facility at Pantex and encourages the NNSA to make this facility a center of excellence in the NNSA for high explosives pressing and manufacturing. Secure transportation asset The committee recommends $219.1 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 and components, and other materials requiring safe and secure transport. Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer The committee recommends $827.4 million for safeguards and security and the Chief Information Officer, the amount of the budget request. Naval Reactors The committee recommends $1.3 billion for naval reactors, the amount of the budget request. The committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million to the Naval Reactors and Infrastructure to $453.7 million and an increase to project 13- D-904 KS Radiological Work and Storage Building of $2.6 million. The committee supports the Spent Fuel Handling Facility to be constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs The committee recommends $2.2 billion for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program, an increase of $80.0 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 recommends funding for these programs as follows: $388.3 million for nonproliferation and verification research and development; $141.7 million for nonproliferation and international security; $369.6 million for international nuclear materials production and cooperation, the amount of the budget request; $582.6 million for fissile materials disposition; and $424.5 million for the global threat reduction initiative, the amount of the budget request. The committee notes that this year the NNSA moved the nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ($256.0 million) to the Nonproliferation Account, which artificially inflates the top line for nonproliferation as compared to prior years. The result is that the nonproliferation account, excluding the counterterrorism line, decreases by $400.0 million, 17.2 percent compared to fiscal year 2013. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to critically review the status of the NNSA nonproliferation program and provide long-term direction to help stem any future possible decreases to the nonproliferation account, as there is clearly no shortage of nuclear nonproliferation work around the world. Nonproliferation and verification research and development The committee recommends $388.8 million for nonproliferation and verification research and development. The committee requests a 5-year road map for the nuclear detonation detection mission as integrated with the Department of Defense (DOD) no later than January 31, 2014. The committee continues to support the valuable research and development work that is conducted under this program. The additional funding will support high-priority research requirements, including work to support the long-term ability of the United States to monitor and detect clandestine nuclear weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices. Much of the work supported by NNSA is unique to the Federal Government and serves as the technical basis for work by many other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and DOD. Nonproliferation and international security The committee recommends $150.1 million for nonproliferation and international security. The committee authorized a program last year for scientific engagement in the area of non-proliferation and encourages NNSA to budget for it accordingly. International nuclear materials protection and cooperation The committee recommends $369.6 million for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation, the amount of the budget request, and awaits a review of the Second-Line-of- Defense program. 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 U.S. and Russia have signed the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) 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 U.S. considered more than 40 different options on how to disposition 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 U.S. has agreed to assist Russia in its effort with a contribution of $400.0 million. For fiscal year 2014, the Fissile Materials Disposition program, which will blend surplus weapons plutonium with depleted uranium to be used as commercial reactor fuel--MOX-- will slow down program and construction activities to conduct a strategic review. The committee is concerned that NNSA's decision to slow down construction and study alternatives to MOX could add considerable costs and uncertainty to the Fissile Materials Disposition Program, result in fines due to South Carolina of $100 million per year, strand surplus plutonium at Pantex and the Savannah River Site, and lead to the renegotiation of the PMDA. As such, the committee directs the strategic review to include but not be limited to MOX. In considering MOX, the strategic review must take account of the investments made to date and ways to increase efficiency and to reduce the cost of the MOX program. Because the committee added $80.0 million in fiscal year 2014 to the program, the committee stresses to the Department of Energy, that during the review, it minimizes any impact to the progress of the program. While the current MOX construction project is over 50 percent complete, it is approximately $3.0 billion over budget (from $4.8 billion to $7.7 billion) and three years late to completion (fiscal year 2020 instead of fiscal year 2017) due to a range of factors including a lower than planned funding profile, poor contractor performance, and poor management by NNSA. The Government Accountability Office has testified before the committee that the total life cycle cost will exceed $24.2 billion, including actual costs of $5.2 billion for prior years (fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2012). The estimate stretches out to fiscal year 2036. Last year, the fiscal year 2013 budget request had a proposal of funding the program at $921.0 million for fiscal 2013 and $721.0 million for fiscal year 2014, a reduction of $200.0 million. In an effort to minimize the impacts of the strategic review, the committee recommends $582.6 million for fissile materials disposition, an increase of $80.0 million above the amount of the budget request. Global threat reduction initiative The committee recommends $424.5 million for the global threat reduction initiative, the amount of the budget request. The committee supports this effort to secure within 4 years vulnerable nuclear material that could be used in a dirty bomb or in an improvised nuclear device. Nuclear counterterrorism incident response The committee recommends $256.0 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget request. Office of the Administrator The committee recommends $397.8 million for the Office of the Administrator. Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $5.3 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 a legislative assumption accompanies the budget request of $463.0 million for the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, to reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 102-48, 42 U.S.C. 2297g) for industry contributions. As in fiscal year 2013, this legislation was not reauthorized and the committee assumes it will not be reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the committee redistributes the $462.0 million associated with this assumption to other higher priority cleanup needs in the Department. Savannah River Site The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah River Site cleanup, an increase of $150.0 million, to help accelerate and meet tank stabilization milestones under the consent order with the State of South Carolina. The committee commends the NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management for continuing operations at the H canyon, which is the only large-scale reprocessing line left in the United States. The H canyon is the Nation's last full reprocessing line and will continue to serve vital missions whether it involves purifying plutonium for mixed oxide fuel or down blending waste from Canada containing highly enriched uranium. 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 the 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 The committee continues to follow the progress at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) at 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 come to a decision on whether an additional pre-treatment plant is needed for the high level waste stream. The overall completion cost of the project has risen from $5.8 billion to $12.3 billion. The construction of an additional pre-treatment plant for high level waste will increase the cost further. The committee directs the Department to ensure 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. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee has directed the Government Accountability Office to give the committee quarterly reviews of the project. Hanford Site The committee recommends $941.8 million for the Hanford River Site (excluding the waste treatment and immobilization plant), an increase of $20.0 million for the River Corridor cleanup to help accelerate and stabilize the chromium groundwater contamination as well as nuclear facility cleanup. Idaho National Laboratory The committee recommends $395.0 million, an increase of $30.0 million 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 $259.8 million for Los Alamos National Laboratory to continue to remove transuranic waste for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and monitor groundwater contamination. Oak Ridge Reservation The committee recommends $203.9 million for the Oak Ridge Reservation, an increase of $10.0 million to continue consolidation of special nuclear material associated with uranium 233. Office of River Protection The committee recommends $1.2 billion, an increase of $50.0 million for radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition to increase surveillance and treat transuranic waste applicable to shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant The committee recommends $236.4 million, an increase of $33.0 million to continue operations and replace aging equipment, especially those related to safety. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is an important operation upon which the entire cleanup operations relies upon to dispose of defense transuranic waste. Security The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for security at the Richland/Hanford site to $89.1 million. The Department should accelerate efforts at Hanford to remove the category I nuclear material from the site to lower security costs. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for security at the Savannah River Site given the large quantity of category I nuclear material it must safeguard. Technology Development The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for technology development to $34.1 million. Program Direction The committee recommends $300.8 million for program direction, an increase of $20.0 million. The Office of Environmental Management has a staff of over 1,400 civil servants who manage this long and difficult job of honoring the cleanup commitment made by the Department to the local communities at these former defense sites. The committee notes that the recommended level is still some $20.0 million short of the levels in fiscal years 2012 and 2103. Other defense activities (sec. 3103) The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $749.1 million for other defense activities, the amount of the budget request; the committee recommends $251.9 million for health, safety, and security, the amount of the budget request; $196.3 million for specialized security, the amount of the budget request; $176.9 million for Legacy Management, the amount of the budget request; $118.8 million for other defense- related administrative support, the amount of the budget request; and $5.0 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount of the budget request. Legislative proposals elsewhere in the Act speak to security at facilities containing categories I and II of nuclear material. Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations Establishment of Director for Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation in National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3111) The committee recommends a provision that would amend the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401 et. Seq.) to establish an Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) whose director is Senate confirmed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has recently established a position in an attempt to control program cost escalation, and they should be commended for this action. This provision makes the position and office permanent in statue given that several such positions and offices have been established and then de-established in both the Department of Energy and the NNSA. The cost growth of nearly every program in the NNSA requires a permanent office and position, but even more important is that the position be Senate confirmed so that individual answers to Congress on their views and progress in controlling cost growth of programs such as the B-61 life extension, the Uranium Processing Facility, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Program, and eventually the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility. The Government Accountability Office estimates that through 2031, the NNSA will undertake an estimated $200.0 billion in work scope whether it is life extension programs or recapitalizing new facilities in the complex. While the staff size of the NNSA is relatively small, approximately 1,800 federal positions, the committee expects the office to phase in its activities in over several years and to work jointly with the Department of Defense (DOD) CAPE Office, not only to train personnel but to conduct joint cost estimates of an entire strategic weapon system consisting of the delivery vehicle and the warhead. Currently, these estimates are conducted separately; the warhead through the Nuclear Weapons Council under the 6.X process, and the delivery systems through the DOD acquisition processes. Plan for improvement and integration of financial management of nuclear security enterprise (sec. 3112) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to develop a plan for a common cost structure between activities at different sites with the purpose of comparing how efficiently different sites within the NNSA complex are carrying out similar activities. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has commented numerous times that each site in the NNSA complex uses a different cost accounting structure for direct and indirect costs. While such cost accounting structures are compliant with the requirements outlined in section 9904.418 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, it is virtually impossible to compare how funds are spent at different sites. This dilemma has resulted in a degraded ability to perform oversight of the NNSA sites and their contractors. GAO pointed out this issue with respect to accurate costing of facility operations in their report, GAO- 10-582, ``Actions Needed to Identify Total Costs of Weapons Complex Infrastructure and Research Production Capabilities,'' and earlier across the Department of Energy complex in GAO-05- 897, ``Department of Energy: Additional Opportunities Exist for reducing Laboratory Contractors' Support Costs.'' The committee recognizes that such a transition will take time and effort given the number of different business systems at each site and accordingly gives a 4-year implementation date for bringing the NNSA complex to a common cost structure. Not later than June 15, 2014, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall brief the congressional defense committees on an assessment of the plan developed by the Administrator in this provision that includes the extent to which the plan will result in the improvement and integration of the financial management of the nuclear security enterprise and whether sufficient resources are available to enable implementation of the plan. Certification of security measures at atomic energy defense facilities (sec. 3113) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Energy to certify facilities containing categories I and II quantities of special nuclear material as meeting Department of Energy (DOE) security standards and regulations for physical security of facilities and surrounding infrastructure. For facilities that cannot be certified, the facility will stop routine operations until they meet the applicable standards and regulations. There is a national security waiver for continued operations of non-certified facilities. The security of special nuclear materials in quantities that present a threat to national security demand nothing short of perfection. There simply is no other acceptable standard. Accountability should be clear and direct starting at the highest official in the responsible organization. The Atomic Energy Act defines that official as the Secretary of Energy. The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a system that tracks deficiencies in securing special nuclear materials at DOE atomic energy defense facilities. The system shall meet the auditing standards of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The committee directs GAO to perform an audit of the tracking system no later than June 30, 2014, to and report the findings to the congressional defense committees. Plan for incorporating exascale computing into the stockpile stewardship program (sec. 3114) The committee recommends a provision that would amend the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to provide for a long-term strategy on exascale computing in the stockpile stewardship program. The provision would ensure that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues its leadership role, a role held since the Manhattan Project's collaboration with John Von Neumann, of developing large-scale computing machines. This provision would require the NNSA to provide a long-term strategy for achieving exascale levels of computing (10 to the 18th floating point operations per second) that is necessary to model the full three-dimensional physics of a nuclear weapon. Integrated plutonium strategy (sec. 3115) The committee recommends a provision that would amend the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to provide for a long-term plutonium strategy for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as part of its Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan. Plutonium sustainment is at the core of the NNSA stockpile mission. This integrated plan would ensure the NNSA remains focused on its plutonium mission. Authorization of modular building strategy as an alternative to the replacement project for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3116) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3144(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to permit consideration of a modular building strategy for engineering and design if it meets long term stockpile requirements. Increase in construction design threshold (sec. 3117) The committee recommends a provision that would increase the major capital construction design threshold for the National Nuclear Security Administration from $600,000 to $1.2 million to account for increased construction costs. Clarification of form of submission of cost estimates on life extension programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 3118) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4217(b) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2537(b)) to require an unclassified version of the cost estimate with a classified annex if necessary. Subtitle C--Reports Assessment of nuclear nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3121) The committee recommends a provision that would require the National Nuclear Security Administration to undergo a review of their nuclear nonproliferation programs by the National Academies of Science. There is concern in the committee that as programs finish their near-term goals, there is no thought given to future efforts in nuclear non-proliferation. This provision seeks to ensure such future missions are considered. Modification of reviews relating to cost-benefit analysis of management and operating contracts of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3122) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3121(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to lower the number of mandatory reports by the Government Accountability Office. Modification of deadline for certain reports relating to program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3123) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3122(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require a 30-day notice for extending the program on scientific engagement for non-proliferation to a new country. The provision gives the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration a national security waiver of the requirement as long as there is a report filed within 30 days. Modification of certain reports on cost containment for uranium capabilities replacement project (sec. 3124) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3123(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) to change the Government Accountability Office reporting requirement from the end of project life to 1 year after the date of enactment in consultation with the congressional defense committees. The end of project life would require reporting for approximately the next 23 years with 90 such reports. Submission of interim report of Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3125) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3166(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to extend the date of the interim report from 180 days after the date of enactment to 180 days after the first meeting of the advisory panel. Subtitle D--Technical Corrections Technical corrections to the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (sec. 3131) The committee recommends a provision that would amend the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (41 U.S.C. 2401 et. seq.) with technical and clarifying corrections. Technical corrections to the Atomic Energy Defense Act (sec. 3132) The committee recommends a provision that would amend the Atomic Energy Defense Act (42 U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.) with technical and clarifying corrections. Budget Item Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund The Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal year 2014 made an assumption of $463.0 million based on a legislative proposal being enacted to reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 102-48, 42 USC 2297g). A similar legislative assumption was made in the fiscal year 2013 request, which the committee assumed would not be reauthorized. Similar to last fiscal year, the committee assumes again that this legislation will not be reauthorized ($463.0 million decrease) and increases by $462.0 million the following accounts: Mixed Oxide Fuel construction, project 99-D-143, $80.0 million; Hanford River Corridor and other clean-up operations, $20.0 million; Idaho clean-up and waste disposition, $30.0 million; Hanford radioactive waste liquid tank stabilization, $50.0 million; Savannah River radioactive waste tank stabilization, $150.0 million; Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, $33.0 million; Program Direction, $20.0 million; security at Richland and Hanford, $10.0 million; security at Savannah River Site, $10.0 million; and Technology Development, $10.0 million. Items of Special Interest B-61 Mod 12 life extension program The National Nuclear Security Agency has now entered phase 6.3, engineering development, of the B-61 Mod 12 life extension program (LEP). The committee has reviewed the Weapons Design and Cost Report and is concerned about possible concurrency in the overall program, work load scheduling with other programs underway at the production sites (Kansas City, Y-12, and Pantex), as well as technology and manufacturing maturation. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit a report that examines key elements of the B-61 Mod 12 LEP within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. These elements shall include: (1) technology readiness and manufacturing readiness levels; (2) research and development and productions concurrency; (3) work load and scheduling between the production sites and the weapons laboratories; (4) coordination and integration with other LEP programs such as W88 Alt 370, W76, W78/88, and long-range standoff warhead life extensions; and (5) ongoing developmental and production work by the Air Force for the tail kit guidance assembly. After the initial report, GAO shall review the B-61 at key phases of the 6.X process (production engineering, first production, and quantity production) at the direction of the committee. Review of National Nuclear Security Administration Capital Projects Serious questions have been raised about the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) analyses of project alternatives associated with critical decision 1 under Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3B, ``Program and Project Management of Capital Assets'' stemming from NNSA's decisions in 2012 to cancel and defer two major nuclear facilities after spending more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars on the design of each facility. Specifically, NNSA announced in January 2012 its decision to cancel the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) after having spent 12 years and $730 million on the facility design. PDCF was one of two planned high-hazard nuclear facilities needed to support NNSA's Plutonium Disposition Program. In cancelling PDCF, NNSA explained that other alternatives had been identified that would better meet the mission need. Also, in February 2012 NNSA announced its decision to defer for at least five years another planned major nuclear facility needed for plutonium research-- the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Nuclear Facility. NNSA spent about 10 years and more than $350 million on the design of the CMRR Nuclear Facility. In cancelling this project, NNSA explained that it has adequate alternatives for conducting plutonium research in the near term using existing facilities and that it is investigating other alternatives to building the CMRR. Other projects that have had similar issues include NNSA's Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility (RLWTF) at Los Alamos and the Uranium 233 Disposition Project managed by the Office of Environmental Management (EM). NNSA is currently reaffirming the CD-1 decision regarding the alternatives analysis for the RLWTF and EM cancelled the U-233 project after spending approximately $255 million on design and construction. Given the amount of time and money spent on designing these facilities before they were cancelled and deferred, these decisions raise serious questions about how well NNSA scrutinizes the analyses of alternatives prior to submitting them for review and approval. The committee is also concerned about the extent to which other NNSA projects are proceeding through design without a rigorous analysis of alternatives and the extent to which NNSA projects may languish in the design phase without proper oversight to ensure that the need for these projects remains viable. As such, the committee directs that the Government Accountability Office investigate the following questions and report back to the committee with initial results no later than February 28, 2014 and a final report no later than September 9, 2013 on the following issues: (1) What is NNSA's process for conducting analyses of alternatives prior to project starts, and to what extent have projects deviated from the alternatives originally selected for those projects? (2) How does NNSA plan for and execute its projects' design phases prior to the establishment of a cost and schedule baseline, and what improvements if any can be made? (3) How much has NNSA spent in recent years on capital acquisition projects prior to critical decision 2, the point at which 90 percent design maturity is now required for high-hazard nuclear facilities, and how do these costs compare to total project costs? (4) What are the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of federal project directors during the design phases of capital acquisition projects? Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project The committee notes that the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant may change scope for the high level waste pre-treatment systems and begin treating only low level waste streams. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to monitor the status of this construction and to periodically brief the committee on the status of construction and operations at the facility through the end of fiscal year 2014. Assessment of Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities that will be transferred to the Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) currently operates in a number of older nuclear facilities that will be transferred to the Office of Environmental Management (EM) for demolition and decontamination. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess the inventory of facilities that NNSA plans to transfer to EM, which will have the responsibility to remove and remediate the surrounding area. GAO shall provide the results of this assessment to the committee by June 30, 2014, or at a date determined by the committee. Travel by scientists and other technical personnel to conferences and other venues of benefit to the NNSA mission The committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to assess the impact that recent Office of Management and Budget directives have had on the ability of federal and national laboratory scientists and other technical personnel to travel to professional conferences and other venues associated with advancing scientific and technical knowledge that is of benefit to the NNSA mission. This assessment shall be due to the congressional defense committees by February 28, 2014. Use of the term National Security Laboratory in the Atomic Energy Defense Act The committee notes that the use of the term ``National Security Laboratory'' in the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.) is not meant to preclude the use by the Federal Government of other Department of Energy national laboratories as defined in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801) who perform important work in a broad area of national security activities. 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 $29.9 million. TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) The committee recommends a provision that would re- authorize certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) The committee recommends a provision that would provide for the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this 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 2014 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 2014 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 (In Thousands of Dollars) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 2014 Senate Senate Request Change Authorized ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE National Defense, Base Budget Function 051, Department of Defense-Military Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations Title I--Procurement Aircraft Procurement, Army..... 5,024,387 -19,984 5,004,403 Missile Procurement, Army...... 1,334,083 1,334,083 Procurement of Weapons & 1,597,267 -159,439 1,437,828 Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. Procurement of Ammunition, Army 1,540,437 -84,800 1,455,637 Other Procurement, Army........ 6,465,218 6,465,218 Aircraft Procurement, Navy..... 17,927,651 32,000 17,959,651 Weapons Procurement, Navy...... 3,122,193 6,400 3,128,593 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy 589,267 589,267 & Marine Corps................ Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy 14,077,804 155,300 14,233,104 Other Procurement, Navy........ 6,310,257 6,310,257 Procurement, Marine Corps...... 1,343,511 1,343,511 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 11,398,901 -17,200 11,381,701 Missile Procurement, Air Force. 5,343,286 5,343,286 Procurement of Ammunition, Air 759,442 759,442 Force......................... Other Procurement, Air Force... 16,760,581 16,760,581 Procurement, Defense-Wide...... 4,534,083 11,844 4,545,927 Joint Urgent Operational Needs 98,800 98,800 Fund.......................... Subtotal, Title I--Procurement. 98,227,168 -75,879 98,151,289 Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Research, Development, Test and 7,989,102 29,578 8,018,680 Evaluation, Army.............. Research, Development, Test and 15,974,780 -100,875 15,873,905 Evaluation, Navy.............. Research, Development, Test and 25,702,946 -49,600 25,653,346 Evaluation, Air Force......... Research, Development, Test and 17,667,108 142,156 17,809,264 Evaluation, Defense-Wide...... Operational Test & Evaluation, 186,300 186,300 Defense....................... Subtotal, Title II--Research, 67,520,236 21,259 67,541,495 Development, Test and Evaluation.................... Title III--Operation and Maintenance Operation & Maintenance, Army.. 35,073,077 616,600 35,689,677 Operation & Maintenance, Army 3,095,036 36,400 3,131,436 Reserve....................... Operation & Maintenance, Army 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396 National Guard................ Operation & Maintenance, Navy.. 39,945,237 434,768 40,380,005 Operation & Maintenance, Marine 6,254,650 56,000 6,310,650 Corps......................... Operation & Maintenance, Navy 1,197,752 10,800 1,208,552 Reserve....................... Operation & Maintenance, Marine 263,317 263,317 Corps Reserve................. Operation & Maintenance, Air 37,270,842 512,600 37,783,442 Force......................... Operation & Maintenance, Air 3,164,607 8,700 3,173,307 Force Reserve................. Operation & Maintenance, Air 6,566,004 28,200 6,594,204 National Guard................ Operation & Maintenance, 32,997,693 -244,401 32,753,292 Defense-Wide.................. United States Court of Appeals 13,606 13,606 for the Armed Forces.......... Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster 109,500 109,500 and Civic Aid................. Cooperative Threat Reduction... 528,455 528,455 DoD Acquisition Workforce 256,031 256,031 Development Fund.............. Environmental Restoration, Army 298,815 298,815 Environmental Restoration, Navy 316,103 316,103 Environmental Restoration, Air 439,820 439,820 Force......................... Environmental Restoration, 10,757 10,757 Defense-Wide.................. Environmental Restoration, 237,443 237,443 Formerly Used Defense Sites... Overseas Contingency Operations 5,000 5,000 Transfer Fund................. Subtotal, Title III--Operation 175,097,941 1,533,867 176,631,808 and Maintenance............... Title IV--Military Personnel Military Personnel 130,399,881 -270,000 130,129,881 Appropriations................ Medicare-Eligible Retiree 6,676,750 6,676,750 Health Fund Contributions..... Subtotal, Title IV--Military 137,076,631 -270,000 136,806,631 Personnel..................... Title XIV--Other Authorizations Working Capital Fund, Army..... 25,158 25,158 Working Capital Fund, Air Force 61,731 61,731 Working Capital Fund, Defense- 46,428 46,428 Wide.......................... Working Capital Fund, Defense 1,412,510 1,412,510 Commissary Agency............. National Defense Sealift Fund.. 730,700 -112,200 618,500 Defense Health Program......... 33,054,528 218,000 33,272,528 Chemical Agents & Munitions 1,057,123 1,057,123 Destruction, Defense.......... Drug Interdiction & Counter- 938,545 -5,840 932,705 Drug Activities, Defense...... Office of the Inspector General 312,131 35,900 348,031 Subtotal, Title XIV--Other 37,638,854 135,860 37,774,714 Authorizations................ Total, Division A: Department 515,560,830 1,345,107 516,905,937 of Defense Authorizations..... Division B: Military Construction Authorizations Military Construction Army........................... 1,119,875 1,119,875 Navy........................... 1,700,269 -85,673 1,614,596 Air Force...................... 1,156,573 -192,377 964,196 Defense-Wide................... 3,985,300 -1,054,641 2,930,659 Army National Guard............ 320,815 320,815 Air National Guard............. 119,800 119,800 Army Reserve................... 174,060 174,060 Navy Reserve................... 32,976 32,976 Air Force Reserve.............. 45,659 45,659 Chemical Demilitarization 122,536 122,536 Construction.................. NATO Security Investment 239,700 239,700 Program....................... Subtotal, Military Construction 9,017,563 -1,332,691 7,684,872 Family Housing Construction, Army............. 44,008 -16,600 27,408 Operation and Maintenance, Army 512,871 512,871 Construction, Navy and Marine 73,407 73,407 Corps......................... Operation and Maintenance, Navy 389,844 389,844 and Marine Corps.............. Construction, Air Force........ 76,360 76,360 Operation and Maintenance, Air 388,598 388,598 Force......................... Operation and Maintenance, 55,845 55,845 Defense-Wide.................. Family Housing Improvement Fund 1,780 1,780 Subtotal, Family Housing....... 1,542,713 -16,600 1,526,113 Base Realignment and Closure Army........................... 180,401 180,401 Navy........................... 144,580 144,580 Air Force...................... 126,376 126,376 Subtotal, Base Realignment and 451,357 451,357 Closure....................... Total, Division B: Military 11,011,633 -1,349,291 9,662,342 Construction Authorizations... Total 051, Department of 526,572,463 -4,184 526,568,279 Defense-Military.............. Function 053, Atomic Energy Activities Division C: Department of Energy National Security and Independent Federal Agency Authorizations Department of Energy Authorizations Energy Programs Electricity Delivery and Energy 16,000 -16,000 Reliability................... Nuclear Energy................. 94,000 94,000 Subtotal, Energy Programs...... 110,000 -16,000 94,000 National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities............. 7,868,409 7,868,409 Defense Nuclear 2,140,142 80,000 2,220,142 Nonproliferation.............. Naval Reactors................. 1,246,134 1,246,134 Office of the Administrator.... 397,784 397,784 Subtotal, National Nuclear 11,254,685 80,000 11,732,469 Security Administration....... Environmental and Other Defense Activities Defense Environmental Cleanup.. 5,316,909 -80,000 5,236,909 Other Defense Activities....... 749,080 749,080 Subtotal, Environmental and 6,065,989 -80,000 5,985,989 Other Defense Activities...... Subtotal, Department of Energy 17,828,458 -16,000 17,812,458 Authorizations................ Independent Federal Agency Authorization Defense Nuclear Facilities 29,915 29,915 Safety Board.................. Subtotal, Independent Federal 29,915 29,915 Agency Authorization.......... Subtotal, Division C: 17,858,373 -16,000 17,842,373 Department of Energy National Security and Independent Federal Agency Authorizations. Total, 053, Atomic Energy 17,858,373 -16,000 17,842,373 Defense Activities............ Total, National Defense, Base 544,430,836 -20,184 544,410,652 Budget........................ National Defense, Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget Function 051, Department of Defense-Military Procurement, OCO Aircraft Procurement, Army..... 771,788 771,788 Missile Procurement, Army...... 128,645 128,645 Procurement of Ammunition, Army 180,900 180,900 Other Procurement, Army........ 603,123 603,123 Joint Improvised Explosive 1,000,000 -151,000 849,000 Device Defeat Fund............ Aircraft Procurement, Navy..... 240,696 240,696 Weapons Procurement, Navy...... 86,500 86,500 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy 206,821 206,821 & Marine Corps................ Other Procurement, Navy........ 17,968 17,968 Procurement, Marine Corps...... 129,584 129,584 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 115,668 115,668 Missile Procurement, Air Force. 24,200 24,200 Procurement of Ammunition, Air 159,965 159,965 Force......................... Other Procurement, Air Force... 2,574,846 2,574,846 Procurement, Defense-Wide...... 111,275 111,275 Joint Urgent Operational Needs 15,000 15,000 Fund.......................... Subtotal, Procurement.......... 6,366,979 -151,000 6,215,979 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, OCO Research, Development, Test and 7,000 7,000 Evaluation, Army.............. Research, Development, Test and 34,426 34,426 Evaluation, Navy.............. Research, Development, Test and 9,000 9,000 Evaluation, Air Force......... Research, Development, Test and 66,208 66,208 Evaluation, Defense-Wide...... Subtotal, Research, 116,634 116,634 Development, Test and Evaluation.................... Operation and Maintenance, OCO Operation & Maintenance, Army.. 29,279,633 129,300 29,408,933 Operation & Maintenance, Army 42,935 42,935 Reserve....................... Operation & Maintenance, Army 199,371 199,371 National Guard................ Afghanistan Security Forces 7,726,720 7,726,720 Fund.......................... Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 279,000 -29,000 250,000 Operation & Maintenance, Navy.. 6,067,993 6,067,993 Operation & Maintenance, Marine 2,669,815 26,000 2,695,815 Corps......................... Operation & Maintenance, Navy 55,700 55,700 Reserve....................... Operation & Maintenance, Marine 12,534 12,534 Corps Reserve................. Operation & Maintenance, Air 10,005,224 10,005,224 Force......................... Operation & Maintenance, Air 32,849 32,849 Force Reserve................. Operation & Maintenance, Air 22,200 22,200 National Guard................ Operation & Maintenance, 6,435,078 7,000 6,442,078 Defense-Wide.................. Subtotal, Operation and 62,829,052 133,300 62,962,352 Maintenance................... Military Personnel, OCO Military Personnel 9,689,307 9,689,307 Appropriations................ Medicare-Eligible Retiree 164,033 164,033 Health Fund Contributions..... Subtotal, Military Personnel... 9,853,340 9,853,340 Other Authorizations, OCO Working Capital Fund, Army..... 44,732 44,732 Working Capital Fund, Air Force 88,500 88,500 Working Capital Fund, Defense- 131,678 131,678 Wide.......................... Defense Health Program......... 904,201 904,201 Drug Interdiction & Counter- 376,305 376,305 Drug Activities, Defense...... Office of the Inspector General 10,766 10,766 Subtotal, Other Authorizations. 1,556,182 1,556,182 Total, National Defense, OCO 80,722,187 -17,700 80,704,487 Budget........................ MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY TOTALS Department of Defense-Military, 526,572,463 -4,184 526,568,279 Base Budget (051)............. Department of Defense-Military, 80,722,187 -17,700 80,704,487 OCO Budget (051).............. Total, Department of Defense- 607,294,650 -21,884 607,272,766 Military (051)................ Atomic energy defense 17,858,373 -16,000 17,842,373 activities, Base Budget (053). Total, National Defense (050).. 625,153,023 -37,884 625,115,139 MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS Title XIV--Armed Forces 67,800 67,800 Retirement Home (Function 600) MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) Title X--General Transfer [4,000,000] [4,000,000] Authority (non-add)........... Title XV--Special Transfer [4,000,000] [4,000,000] Authority (non-add)........... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (In Thousands of Dollars) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 2014 Senate Senate Request Change Authorized ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Defense Discretionary Authorizations (Programs in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee) National Defense (050) Department of Defense-Military, 526,572,463 -4,184 526,568,279 Base Budget (051)............. Department of Defense-Military, 80,722,187 -17,700 80,704,487 OCO Budget (051).............. Atomic energy defense 17,858,373 -16,000 17,842,373 activities, Base Budget (053). Total, National Defense (050).. 625,153,023 -37,884 625,115,139 Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations (Programs Outside the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committees or Already Authorized) Department of Defense-Military (051) Defense Production Act 25,135 25,135 Purchases..................... Indefinite Account: Disposal Of 10,000 10,000 DOD Real Property............. Indefinite Account: Lease Of 30,000 30,000 DOD Real Property............. Subtotal, Department of Defense- 65,135 65,135 Military (051)................ Atomic energy defense activites (053) Formerly Utilized Sites 104,000 104,000 Remedial Action Program....... Subtotal, Atomic energy defense 104,000 104,000 activities (053).............. Defense-related activities (054) Other Discretionary Programs... 7,407,000 7,407,000 Subtotal, Defense-related 7,407,000 7,407,000 activities (054).............. Total, Other Defense 7,576,135 7,576,135 Discretionary Authorizations (050)......................... Discretionary Budget Authority Implication (050) National Defense (050) Department of Defense--Military 607,359,785 -21,884 607,337,901 (051)......................... Atomic Energy Defense 17,962,373 -16,000 17,946,373 Activities (053).............. Defense-Related Activities 7,407,000 7,407,000 (054)......................... Total, Discretionary Budget 632,729,158 -37,884 632,691,274 Authority Implication, 050.... National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates) Department of Defense-Military (051) Concurrent receipt accrual 7,126,000 7,126,000 payments to the Military Retirement Fund............... Revolving, trust and other DOD 1,156,000 1,156,000 Mandatory..................... Offsetting receipts............ -1,752,000 -1,752,000 Subtotal, Department of Defense- 6,530,000 6,530,000 Military (051)................ Atomic energy defense activites (053) Energy employees occupational 1,281,000 1,281,000 illness compensation programs and other..................... Subtotal, Atomic energy defense 1,281,000 1,281,000 activities (053).............. Defense-related activities (054) Radiation exposure compensation 76,000 76,000 trust fund.................... Payment to CIA retirement fund 514,000 514,000 and other..................... Subtotal, Defense-related 590,000 590,000 activities (054).............. Total, National Defense 8,401,000 8,401,000 Mandatory Programs (050)...... Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050) Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050) Department of Defense--Military 613,889,785 -21,884 613,867,901 (051)......................... Atomic Energy Defense 19,243,373 -16,000 19,227,373 Activities (053).............. Defense-Related Activities 7,997,000 7,997,000 (054)......................... Total, Budget Authority 641,130,158 -37,884 641,092,274 Implication (050)............. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 01 UTILITY F/W 1 19,730 1 19,730 AIRCRAFT.......... 03 AERIAL COMMON 4 142,050 -4 0 0 142,050 SENSOR (ACS) (MIP) Reduction of 4 [-4] [-114,700] EMARSS LRIP aircraft........ Modification of [114,700] transferred Liberty A/C..... 04 MQ-1 UAV........... 15 518,460 15 518,460 05 RQ-11 (RAVEN)...... 10,772 10,772 ROTARY 06 HELICOPTER, LIGHT 10 96,227 10 96,227 UTILITY (LUH)..... 07 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 42 608,469 42 608,469 IIIA REMAN........ 08 AH-64 APACHE 150,931 150,931 BLOCK IIIA REMAN ADV PROC (CY)... 09 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 0 IIIB NEW BUILD.... 10 AH-64 APACHE 0 0 BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ADV PROC (CY)............ 12 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 65 1,046,976 -19,984 65 1,026,992 MODEL (MYP)....... Transfer to PE [-19,984] 0203774A at Army request......... 12 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 116,001 116,001 MODEL (MYP)....... 14 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 28 801,650 28 801,650 15 CH-47 HELICOPTER 98,376 98,376 ADV PROC (CY)... MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 16 MQ-1 PAYLOAD--UAS.. 97,781 97,781 17 GUARDRAIL MODS 10,262 10,262 (MIP)............. 18 MULTI SENSOR ABN 12,467 12,467 RECON (MIP)....... 19 AH-64 MODS......... 53,559 53,559 20 CH-47 CARGO 149,764 149,764 HELICOPTER MODS (MYP)............. 21 UTILITY/CARGO 17,500 17,500 AIRPLANE MODS..... 22 UTILITY HELICOPTER 167 74,095 167 74,095 MODS.............. 23 KIOWA MODS WARRIOR. 3 184,044 3 184,044 24 NETWORK AND MISSION 152,569 152,569 PLAN.............. 25 COMMS, NAV 92,779 92,779 SURVEILLANCE...... 26 GATM ROLLUP........ 65,613 65,613 27 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 121,902 121,902 GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 28 AIRCRAFT 47,610 47,610 SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT......... 29 SURVIVABILITY CM... 5,700 5,700 30 CMWS............... 126,869 126,869 OTHER SUPPORT 31 AVIONICS SUPPORT 705 6,809 705 6,809 EQUIPMENT......... 32 COMMON GROUND 65,397 65,397 EQUIPMENT......... 33 AIRCREW INTEGRATED 45,841 45,841 SYSTEMS........... 34 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 79,692 79,692 35 INDUSTRIAL 1,615 1,615 FACILITIES........ 36 LAUNCHER, 2.75 2,877 2,877 ROCKET............ AIRCRAFT 5,024,387 -19,984 5,004,403 PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total............. MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 02 MSE MISSILE........ 56 540,401 56 540,401 AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 03 HELLFIRE SYS 4,464 4,464 SUMMARY........... ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 04 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 449 110,510 449 110,510 SYSTEM SUMMARY.... 05 TOW 2 SYSTEM 988 49,354 988 49,354 SUMMARY........... 06 TOW 2 SYSTEM 19,965 19,965 SUMMARY ADV PROC (CY)............ 07 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 1,788 237,216 1,788 237,216 (GMLRS)........... 08 MLRS REDUCED RANGE 2,412 19,022 2,412 19,022 PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR)............ MODIFICATIONS 11 PATRIOT MODS....... 256,438 256,438 12 STINGER MODS....... 37,252 37,252 13 ITAS/TOW MODS...... 20,000 20,000 14 MLRS MODS.......... 11,571 11,571 15 HIMARS 6,105 6,105 MODIFICATIONS..... SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 16 SPARES AND REPAIR 11,222 11,222 PARTS............. SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 17 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS 3,530 3,530 18 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,748 1,748 $5.0M (MISSILES).. 19 PRODUCTION BASE 5,285 5,285 SUPPORT........... MISSILE 1,334,083 0 1,334,083 PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total............. PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 01 STRYKER VEHICLE.... 374,100 374,100 MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 02 STRYKER (MOD)...... 20,522 20,522 03 FIST VEHICLE (MOD). 29,965 29,965 04 BRADLEY PROGRAM 158,000 158,000 (MOD)............. 05 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 4,769 4,769 155MM M109A6 (MOD) 06 PALADIN INTEGRATED 18 260,177 -40,700 18 219,477 MANAGEMENT (PIM).. Transfer to PE [-40,700] 0604854A at Army Request......... 07 IMPROVED RECOVERY 111,031 111,031 VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES)......... 08 ASSAULT BRIDGE 2,500 2,500 (MOD)............. 09 ASSAULT BREACHER 14 62,951 14 62,951 VEHICLE........... 10 M88 FOV MODS....... 28,469 28,469 11 JOINT ASSAULT 2,002 2,002 BRIDGE............ 12 M1 ABRAMS TANK 178,100 178,100 (MOD)............. 13 ABRAMS UPGRADE 0 0 PROGRAM........... SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 14 PRODUCTION BASE 1,544 1,544 SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV) WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 15 INTEGRATED AIR 1,424 69,147 -1,424 -69,147 0 BURST WEAPON SYSTEM FAMILY..... XM25 Counter [-1,424] [-69,147] Defilade Target Engagement...... 18 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 5,310 5,310 19 XM320 GRENADE 5,061 24,049 5,061 24,049 LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM)............. 21 CARBINE............ 41,897 70,846 -29,897 -49,592 12,000 21,254 Individual [-29,897] [-49,592] Carbine early to need............ 23 COMMON REMOTELY 242 56,580 242 56,580 OPERATED WEAPONS STATION........... 24 HANDGUN............ 300 300 MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 26 M777 MODS.......... 39,300 39,300 27 M4 CARBINE MODS.... 10,300 10,300 28 M2 50 CAL MACHINE 33,691 33,691 GUN MODS.......... 29 M249 SAW MACHINE 7,608 7,608 GUN MODS.......... 30 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 2,719 2,719 GUN MODS.......... 31 SNIPER RIFLES 7,017 7,017 MODIFICATIONS..... 32 M119 MODIFICATIONS. 18,707 18,707 33 M16 RIFLE MODS..... 2,136 2,136 34 MODIFICATIONS LESS 1,569 1,569 THAN $5.0M (WOCV- WTCV)............. SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 35 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,024 2,024 $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV). 36 PRODUCTION BASE 10,108 10,108 SUPPORT (WOCV- WTCV)............. 37 INDUSTRIAL 459 459 PREPAREDNESS...... 38 SMALL ARMS 1,267 1,267 EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG)......... PROCUREMENT OF 1,597,267 -159,439 1,437,828 W&TCV, ARMY Total. PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 2 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 112,167 -25,000 87,167 TYPES............. Program decrease [-25,000] 3 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 58,571 -5,000 53,571 TYPES............. Program decrease [-5,000] 4 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 9,858 9,858 TYPES............. 5 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 80,037 -25,000 55,037 TYPES............. Program decrease [-25,000] 7 CTG, 25MM, ALL 16,496 -10,300 6,196 TYPES............. Program decrease [-10,300] 8 CTG, 30MM, ALL 69,533 -19,500 50,033 TYPES............. Program decrease [-19,500] 9 CTG, 40MM, ALL 55,781 55,781 TYPES............. MORTAR AMMUNITION 10 60MM MORTAR, ALL 38,029 38,029 TYPES............. 11 81MM MORTAR, ALL 24,656 24,656 TYPES............. 12 120MM MORTAR, ALL 60,781 60,781 TYPES............. TANK AMMUNITION 13 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 121,551 121,551 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES......... ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 14 ARTILLERY 39,825 39,825 CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES.. 15 ARTILLERY 37,902 37,902 PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES......... 16 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 802 67,896 802 67,896 RANGE M982........ 17 ARTILLERY 71,205 71,205 PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL.. ROCKETS 20 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 1,012 1,012 MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES............. 21 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 108,476 108,476 ALL TYPES......... OTHER AMMUNITION 22 DEMOLITION 24,074 24,074 MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES............. 23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 33,242 33,242 24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 7,609 7,609 25 SIMULATORS, ALL 5,228 5,228 TYPES............. MISCELLANEOUS 26 AMMO COMPONENTS, 16,700 16,700 ALL TYPES......... 27 NON-LETHAL 7,366 7,366 AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES............. 28 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES.. 3,614 3,614 29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 12,423 12,423 MILLION (AMMO).... 30 AMMUNITION PECULIAR 16,604 16,604 EQUIPMENT......... 31 FIRST DESTINATION 14,328 14,328 TRANSPORTATION (AMMO)............ 32 CLOSEOUT 108 108 LIABILITIES....... PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 33 PROVISION OF 242,324 242,324 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES........ 34 CONVENTIONAL 179,605 179,605 MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION.. 35 ARMS INITIATIVE.... 3,436 3,436 PROCUREMENT OF 1,540,437 -84,800 1,455,637 AMMUNITION, ARMY Total............. OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/ 25 4,000 25 4,000 DOLLY SETS........ 2 SEMITRAILERS, 40 6,841 40 6,841 FLATBED:.......... 3 FAMILY OF MEDIUM 837 223,910 837 223,910 TACTICAL VEH (FMTV)............ 4 FIRETRUCKS & 11,880 11,880 ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP 5 FAMILY OF HEAVY 220 14,731 220 14,731 TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV)............ 6 PLS ESP............ 74 44,252 74 44,252 9 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE 77 39,525 77 39,525 TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV.............. 10 HMMWV 0 0 RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM........... 11 TACTICAL WHEELED 746 51,258 746 51,258 VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS.............. 12 MODIFICATION OF IN 34 49,904 34 49,904 SVC EQUIP......... 13 MINE-RESISTANT 2,200 2,200 AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS....... NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 14 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN 400 400 15 PASSENGER CARRYING 716 716 VEHICLES.......... 16 NONTACTICAL 5,619 5,619 VEHICLES, OTHER... COMM--JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 18 WIN-T--GROUND 2,139 973,477 2,139 973,477 FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK........... 19 SIGNAL 14,120 14,120 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM........... 20 JOINT INCIDENT SITE 7,869 7,869 COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY........ 21 JCSE EQUIPMENT 5,296 5,296 (USREDCOM)........ COMM--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 22 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 31 147,212 31 147,212 WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS........... 23 TRANSPORTABLE 7,998 7,998 TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS.... 24 SHF TERM........... 7,232 7,232 25 NAVSTAR GLOBAL 3,308 3,308 POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE)........... 26 SMART-T (SPACE).... 13,992 13,992 28 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-- 94 28,206 94 28,206 GBS............... 29 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 15 2,778 15 2,778 (TAC SAT)......... COMM--C3 SYSTEM 31 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & 17,590 17,590 CONTROL SYS (AGCCS)........... COMM--COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 32 ARMY DATA 786 786 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO)............ 33 JOINT TACTICAL 10,523 382,930 10,523 382,930 RADIO SYSTEM...... 34 MID-TIER NETWORKING 130 19,200 130 19,200 VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR)............ 35 RADIO TERMINAL SET, 1,438 1,438 MIDS LVT(2)....... 36 SINCGARS FAMILY.... 9,856 9,856 37 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS-- 2,066 14,184 2,066 14,184 OPA2.............. 38 TRACTOR DESK....... 6,271 6,271 40 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 1,030 1,030 PROGRAM COMM/ ELECTRONICS....... 41 TACTICAL 15,967 31,868 15,967 31,868 COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM. 42 UNIFIED COMMAND 18,000 18,000 SUITE............. 44 RADIO, IMPROVED HF 1,166 1,166 (COTS) FAMILY..... 45 FAMILY OF MED COMM 22,867 22,867 FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE..... COMM--INTELLIGENCE COMM 48 CI AUTOMATION 1,512 1,512 ARCHITECTURE...... 49 ARMY CA/MISO GPF 323 61,096 323 61,096 EQUIPMENT......... INFORMATION SECURITY 50 TSEC--ARMY KEY MGT 13,890 13,890 SYS (AKMS)........ 51 INFORMATION SYSTEM 1,133 23,245 1,133 23,245 SECURITY PROGRAM- ISSP.............. 52 BIOMETRICS 3,800 3,800 ENTERPRISE........ 53 COMMUNICATIONS 877 24,711 877 24,711 SECURITY (COMSEC). COMM--LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 55 BASE SUPPORT 43,395 43,395 COMMUNICATIONS.... COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS 57 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 104,577 104,577 58 DEFENSE MESSAGE 612 612 SYSTEM (DMS)...... 59 EMERGENCY 39,000 39,000 MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM........... 60 INSTALLATION INFO 248,477 248,477 INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM........... ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 64 JTT/CIBS-M......... 824 824 65 PROPHET GROUND..... 10 59,198 10 59,198 67 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 2,717 267,214 2,717 267,214 68 JOINT TACTICAL 5 9,899 5 9,899 GROUND STATION (JTAGS)........... 69 TROJAN (MIP)....... 24,598 24,598 70 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 1,927 1,927 (INTEL SPT) (MIP). 71 CI HUMINT AUTO 6,169 6,169 REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS)...... 72 MACHINE FOREIGN 2,924 2,924 LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SYSTEM- M................. ELECT EQUIP-- ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 74 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 18 40,735 18 40,735 MORTAR RADAR...... 75 EW PLANNING & 13 13 MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT)........... 76 ENEMY UAS.......... 2,800 2,800 79 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 1,237 1,237 SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES... 80 CI MODERNIZATION... 1,399 1,399 ELECT EQUIP-- TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 82 SENTINEL MODS...... 86 47,983 86 47,983 83 SENSE THROUGH THE 142 142 WALL (STTW)....... 84 NIGHT VISION 6,879 202,428 6,879 202,428 DEVICES........... 85 LONG RANGE ADVANCED 5,183 5,183 SCOUT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM............ 86 NIGHT VISION, 14,074 14,074 THERMAL WPN SIGHT. 87 SMALL TACTICAL 1,491 22,300 1,491 22,300 OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF...... 89 GREEN LASER 1,016 1,016 INTERDICTION SYSTEM (GLIS)..... 90 INDIRECT FIRE 5 55,354 5 55,354 PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS........ 91 ARTILLERY ACCURACY 800 800 EQUIP............. 92 PROFILER........... 3,027 3,027 93 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 1,185 1,185 (FIREFINDER RADARS)........... 94 JOINT BATTLE 3,866 103,214 3,866 103,214 COMMAND--PLATFORM (JBC-P)........... 96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 167 26,037 167 26,037 (LLDR)............ 97 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 120 23,100 120 23,100 SYSTEM............ 98 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 19 312,727 19 312,727 ELECT EQUIP-- TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 101 FIRE SUPPORT C2 574 43,228 574 43,228 FAMILY............ 102 BATTLE COMMAND 167 14,446 167 14,446 SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT SYSTEM.... 103 FAAD C2............ 4,607 4,607 104 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 8 33,090 8 33,090 PLANNING & CONTROL SYS............... 105 IAMD BATTLE COMMAND 21,200 21,200 SYSTEM............ 107 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE 1,795 1,795 SUPPORT (LCSS).... 109 NETWORK MANAGEMENT 54,327 54,327 INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE........... 110 MANEUVER CONTROL 2,959 59,171 2,959 59,171 SYSTEM (MCS)...... 111 GLOBAL COMBAT 83,936 83,936 SUPPORT SYSTEM- ARMY (GCSS-A)..... 113 LOGISTICS 25,476 25,476 AUTOMATION........ 114 RECONNAISSANCE AND 212 19,341 212 19,341 SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET.... ELECT EQUIP-- AUTOMATION 115 ARMY TRAINING 11,865 11,865 MODERNIZATION..... 116 AUTOMATED DATA 219,431 219,431 PROCESSING EQUIP.. 117 GENERAL FUND 6,414 6,414 ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM............... 118 HIGH PERF COMPUTING 62,683 62,683 MOD PGM (HPCMP)... 120 RESERVE COMPONENT 34,951 34,951 AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS)............ 121 ITEMS LESS THAN 7,440 7,440 $5.0M (A/V)....... 122 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 16 1,615 16 1,615 (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT)........ 123 PRODUCTION BASE 554 554 SUPPORT (C-E)..... 124 BCT EMERGING 20,000 20,000 TECHNOLOGIES...... CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 124A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 3,558 3,558 CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 126 FAMILY OF NON- 762 762 LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE)............ 127 BASE DEFENSE 3,759 20,630 3,759 20,630 SYSTEMS (BDS)..... 128 CBRN DEFENSE....... 24,530 22,151 24,530 22,151 BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 130 TACTICAL BRIDGING.. 2 14,188 2 14,188 131 TACTICAL BRIDGE, 34 23,101 34 23,101 FLOAT-RIBBON...... 132 COMMON BRIDGE 15,416 15,416 TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP............. ENGINEER (NON- CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 134 GRND STANDOFF MINE 311 50,465 311 50,465 DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS)........ 135 ROBOTIC COMBAT 6,490 6,490 SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS)............ 136 EOD ROBOTICS 1,563 1,563 SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION.. 137 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 6,774 20,921 6,774 20,921 DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT)....... 138 REMOTE DEMOLITION 100 100 SYSTEMS........... 139 < $5M, COUNTERMINE 70 2,271 70 2,271 EQUIPMENT......... COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 140 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 464 7,269 464 7,269 141 LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS 200 200 AND LATRINES...... 142 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 1,468 1,468 143 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 31,530 26,526 31,530 26,526 SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS)............ 144 GROUND SOLDIER 5,547 81,680 5,547 81,680 SYSTEM............ 147 FIELD FEEDING 217 28,096 217 28,096 EQUIPMENT......... 148 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 6,904 56,150 6,904 56,150 PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM.. 149 MORTUARY AFFAIRS 248 3,242 248 3,242 SYSTEMS........... 150 FAMILY OF ENGR 289 38,141 289 38,141 COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS. 151 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 210 5,859 210 5,859 (ENG SPT)......... PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 152 DISTRIBUTION 508 60,612 508 60,612 SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER........... MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 153 COMBAT SUPPORT 3,258 22,042 3,258 22,042 MEDICAL........... 154 MEDEVAC MISSON 88 35,318 88 35,318 EQUIPMENT PACKAGE (MEP)............. MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 155 MOBILE MAINTENANCE 25 19,427 25 19,427 EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS. 156 ITEMS LESS THAN 347 3,860 347 3,860 $5.0M (MAINT EQ).. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 157 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, 2,000 2,000 HVY, 6X4 (CCE).... 159 SCRAPERS, 52 36,078 52 36,078 EARTHMOVING....... 160 MISSION MODULES-- 13 9,721 13 9,721 ENGINEERING....... 162 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR 109 50,122 109 50,122 163 TRACTOR, FULL 84 28,828 84 28,828 TRACKED........... 164 ALL TERRAIN CRANES. 19 19,863 19 19,863 166 HIGH MOBILITY 34 23,465 34 23,465 ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE)............ 168 ENHANCED RAPID 109 13,590 109 13,590 AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP 169 CONST EQUIP ESP.... 80 16,088 80 16,088 170 ITEMS LESS THAN 66 6,850 66 6,850 $5.0M (CONST EQUIP)............ RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 171 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP 38,007 38,007 172 ITEMS LESS THAN 10,605 10,605 $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) GENERATORS 173 GENERATORS AND 5,239 129,437 5,239 129,437 ASSOCIATED EQUIP.. MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 174 ROUGH TERRAIN 1,250 1,250 CONTAINER HANDLER (RTCH)............ 175 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS 60 8,260 60 8,260 TRAINING EQUIPMENT 176 COMBAT TRAINING 309 121,710 309 121,710 CENTERS SUPPORT... 177 TRAINING DEVICES, 8,181 225,200 8,181 225,200 NONSYSTEM......... 178 CLOSE COMBAT 15 30,063 15 30,063 TACTICAL TRAINER.. 179 AVIATION COMBINED 2 34,913 2 34,913 ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER........... 180 GAMING TECHNOLOGY 9,955 9,955 IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING.......... TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 181 CALIBRATION SETS 3 8,241 3 8,241 EQUIPMENT......... 182 INTEGRATED FAMILY 1,810 67,506 1,810 67,506 OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE)............ 183 TEST EQUIPMENT 2,105 18,755 2,105 18,755 MODERNIZATION (TEMOD)........... OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 184 M25 STABILIZED 647 5,110 647 5,110 BINOCULAR......... 185 RAPID EQUIPPING 5,110 5,110 SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT......... 186 PHYSICAL SECURITY 62,904 62,904 SYSTEMS (OPA3).... 187 BASE LEVEL COMMON 1,427 1,427 EQUIPMENT......... 188 MODIFICATION OF IN- 1,936 96,661 1,936 96,661 SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA- 3)................ 189 PRODUCTION BASE 2,450 2,450 SUPPORT (OTH)..... 190 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 69 11,593 69 11,593 FOR USER TESTING.. 191 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS 1,597 8,948 1,597 8,948 OPA3.............. 192 TRACTOR YARD....... 8,000 8,000 OPA2 195 INITIAL SPARES--C&E 15 59,700 15 59,700 OTHER PROCUREMENT, 6,465,218 0 6,465,218 ARMY Total........ AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 1 EA-18G............. 21 2,001,787 21 2,001,787 3 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 206,551 206,551 HORNET............ 5 JOINT STRIKE 4 1,135,444 4 1,135,444 FIGHTER CV........ 6 JOINT STRIKE 94,766 94,766 FIGHTER CV--ADV PROC (CY)....... 7 JSF STOVL.......... 6 1,267,260 6 1,267,260 8 JSF STOVL--ADV 103,195 103,195 PROC (CY)....... 9 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT). 18 1,432,573 18 1,432,573 10 V-22 (MEDIUM 55,196 55,196 LIFT)--ADV PROC (CY)............ 11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 25 749,962 25 749,962 AH-1Z)............ 12 H-1 UPGRADES (UH- 71,000 71,000 1Y/AH-1Z)--ADV PROC (CY)....... 13 MH-60S (MYP)....... 18 383,831 18 383,831 14 MH-60S (MYP)-- 37,278 37,278 ADV PROC (CY)... 15 MH-60R (MYP)....... 19 599,237 19 599,237 16 MH-60R (MYP)-- 231,834 231,834 ADV PROC (CY)... 17 P-8A POSEIDON...... 16 3,189,989 16 3,189,989 18 P-8A POSEIDON-- 313,160 313,160 ADV PROC (CY)... 19 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE... 5 997,107 5 997,107 20 E-2D ADV 266,542 266,542 HAWKEYE--ADV PROC (CY)....... TRAINER AIRCRAFT 21 JPATS.............. 29 249,080 29 249,080 OTHER AIRCRAFT 22 KC-130J............ 2 134,358 2 134,358 23 KC-130J--ADV 32,288 32,288 PROC (CY)....... 25 RQ-4 UAV--ADV PROC 52,002 52,002 (CY).............. 26 MQ-8 UAV........... 1 60,980 1 60,980 28 OTHER SUPPORT 1 14,958 1 14,958 AIRCRAFT.......... MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 29 EA-6 SERIES........ 18,577 18,577 30 AEA SYSTEMS........ 48,502 48,502 31 AV-8 SERIES........ 41,575 41,575 32 ADVERSARY.......... 2,992 2,992 33 F-18 SERIES........ 875,371 875,371 34 H-46 SERIES........ 2,127 2,127 36 H-53 SERIES........ 67,675 67,675 37 SH-60 SERIES....... 135,054 135,054 38 H-1 SERIES......... 41,706 41,706 39 EP-3 SERIES........ 55,903 22,000 77,903 12th aircraft to [8,000] Spiral 3........ Sensor [14,000] obsolescence.... 40 P-3 SERIES......... 37,436 37,436 41 E-2 SERIES......... 31,044 31,044 42 TRAINER A/C SERIES. 43,720 43,720 43 C-2A............... 902 902 44 C-130 SERIES....... 47,587 47,587 45 FEWSG.............. 665 665 46 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C 14,587 14,587 SERIES............ 47 E-6 SERIES......... 189,312 189,312 48 EXECUTIVE 85,537 85,537 HELICOPTERS SERIES 49 SPECIAL PROJECT 3,684 10,000 13,684 AIRCRAFT.......... Program office [5,000] sustainment..... Sensor [5,000] obsolescence.... 50 T-45 SERIES........ 98,128 98,128 51 POWER PLANT CHANGES 22,999 22,999 52 JPATS SERIES....... 1,576 1,576 53 AVIATION LIFE 6,267 6,267 SUPPORT MODS...... 54 COMMON ECM 141,685 141,685 EQUIPMENT......... 55 COMMON AVIONICS 120,660 120,660 CHANGES........... 56 COMMON DEFENSIVE 3,554 3,554 WEAPON SYSTEM..... 57 ID SYSTEMS......... 41,800 41,800 58 P-8 SERIES......... 9,485 9,485 59 MAGTF EW FOR 14,431 14,431 AVIATION.......... 60 MQ-8 SERIES........ 1,001 1,001 61 RQ-7 SERIES........ 26,433 26,433 62 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR 160,834 160,834 ACFT) OSPREY...... 63 F-35 STOVL SERIES.. 147,130 147,130 64 F-35 CV SERIES..... 31,100 31,100 AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 65 SPARES AND REPAIR 1,142,461 1,142,461 PARTS............. 66 COMMON GROUND 410,044 410,044 EQUIPMENT......... 67 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 27,450 27,450 FACILITIES........ 68 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 28,930 28,930 69 OTHER PRODUCTION 5,268 5,268 CHARGES........... 70 SPECIAL SUPPORT 60,306 60,306 EQUIPMENT......... 71 FIRST DESTINATION 1,775 1,775 TRANSPORTATION.... AIRCRAFT 17,927,651 32,000 17,959,651 PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total............. WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 1 TRIDENT II MODS.... 1,140,865 1,140,865 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL 7,617 7,617 FACILITIES........ STRATEGIC MISSILES 3 TOMAHAWK........... 196 312,456 196 312,456 TACTICAL MISSILES 4 AMRAAM............. 54 95,413 54 95,413 5 SIDEWINDER......... 225 117,208 225 117,208 6 JSOW............... 328 136,794 328 136,794 7 STANDARD MISSILE... 81 367,985 81 367,985 8 RAM................ 66 67,596 66 67,596 9 HELLFIRE........... 363 33,916 363 33,916 11 STAND OFF PRECISION 50 6,278 50 6,278 GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM)........... 12 AERIAL TARGETS..... 41,799 41,799 13 OTHER MISSILE 3,538 3,538 SUPPORT........... MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 14 ESSM............... 53 76,749 53 76,749 15 HARM MODS.......... 143 111,902 143 111,902 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 16 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL 1,138 1,138 FACILITIES........ 17 FLEET SATELLITE 23,014 23,014 COMM FOLLOW-ON.... ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 18 ORDNANCE SUPPORT 84,318 84,318 EQUIPMENT......... TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 19 SSTD............... 3,978 3,978 20 ASW TARGETS........ 8,031 8,031 MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 21 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS. 150 125,898 150 125,898 22 MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP 108 53,203 108 53,203 MODS.............. 23 QUICKSTRIKE MINE... 7,800 7,800 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 24 TORPEDO SUPPORT 59,730 59,730 EQUIPMENT......... 25 ASW RANGE SUPPORT.. 4,222 4,222 DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 26 FIRST DESTINATION 3,963 3,963 TRANSPORTATION.... GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 27 SMALL ARMS AND 12,513 12,513 WEAPONS........... MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 28 CIWS MODS.......... 56,308 6,400 62,708 Additional RMA [6,400] kits............ 29 COAST GUARD WEAPONS 10,727 10,727 30 GUN MOUNT MODS..... 72,901 72,901 31 CRUISER 1,943 1,943 MODERNIZATION WEAPONS........... 32 AIRBORNE MINE 19,758 19,758 NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS........... SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 34 SPARES AND REPAIR 52,632 52,632 PARTS............. WEAPONS 3,122,193 6,400 3,128,593 PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total............. PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 1 GENERAL PURPOSE 37,703 37,703 BOMBS............. 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 65,411 65,411 ALL TYPES......... 3 MACHINE GUN 20,284 20,284 AMMUNITION........ 4 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 37,870 37,870 5 CARTRIDGES & CART 53,764 53,764 ACTUATED DEVICES.. 6 AIR EXPENDABLE 67,194 67,194 COUNTERMEASURES... 7 JATOS.............. 2,749 2,749 8 LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE 3,906 3,906 ATTACK PROJECTILE. 9 5 INCH/54 GUN 24,151 24,151 AMMUNITION........ 10 INTERMEDIATE 33,080 33,080 CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION........ 11 OTHER SHIP GUN 40,398 40,398 AMMUNITION........ 12 SMALL ARMS & 61,219 61,219 LANDING PARTY AMMO 13 PYROTECHNIC AND 10,637 10,637 DEMOLITION........ 14 AMMUNITION LESS 4,578 4,578 THAN $5 MILLION... MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 15 SMALL ARMS 26,297 26,297 AMMUNITION........ 16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL 6,088 6,088 TYPES............. 17 40 MM, ALL TYPES... 7,644 7,644 18 60MM, ALL TYPES.... 3,349 3,349 20 120MM, ALL TYPES... 13,361 13,361 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 2,149 2,149 23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES. 27,465 27,465 26 FUZE, ALL TYPES.... 26,366 26,366 28 AMMO MODERNIZATION. 8,403 8,403 29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 5,201 5,201 MILLION........... PROCUREMENT OF 589,267 0 589,267 AMMO, NAVY & MC Total............. SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY OTHER WARSHIPS 1 CARRIER REPLACEMENT 944,866 944,866 PROGRAM........... 3 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 2,930,704 2 2,930,704 SUBMARINE......... 4 VIRGINIA CLASS 2,354,612 2,354,612 SUBMARINE ADV PROC (CY)....... 5 CVN REFUELING 1,705,424 1,705,424 OVERHAULS......... 6 CVN REFUELING 245,793 245,793 OVERHAULS ADV PROC (CY)....... 7 DDG 1000........... 231,694 231,694 8 DDG-51............. 1 1,615,564 1 1,615,564 9 DDG-51 ADV PROC 388,551 388,551 (CY)............ 10 LITTORAL COMBAT 4 1,793,014 4 1,793,014 SHIP.............. AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 12 AFLOAT FORWARD 1 524,000 55,300 1 579,300 STAGING BASE...... Navy requested [55,300] adjustment...... 14 JOINT HIGH SPEED 2,732 2,732 VESSEL............ AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 16 MOORED TRAINING 183,900 183,900 SHIP.............. 17 OUTFITTING......... 450,163 450,163 19 LCAC SLEP.......... 4 80,987 4 80,987 20 COMPLETION OF PY 625,800 100,000 725,800 SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS.......... Help buy 3rd DDG- [100,000] 51 in FY 13..... SHIPBUILDING AND 14,077,804 155,300 14,233,104 CONVERSION, NAVY Total............. OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 1 LM-2500 GAS TURBINE 10,180 10,180 2 ALLISON 501K GAS 5,536 5,536 TURBINE........... 3 HYBRID ELECTRIC 16,956 16,956 DRIVE (HED)....... GENERATORS 4 SURFACE COMBATANT 19,782 19,782 HM&E.............. NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 5 OTHER NAVIGATION 39,509 39,509 EQUIPMENT......... PERISCOPES 6 SUB PERISCOPES & 52,515 52,515 IMAGING EQUIP..... OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 7 DDG MOD............ 285,994 285,994 8 FIREFIGHTING 14,389 14,389 EQUIPMENT......... 9 COMMAND AND CONTROL 2,436 2,436 SWITCHBOARD....... 10 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE.... 12,700 12,700 11 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED 40,329 40,329 SERVICE LIFE PROGRAM........... 12 POLLUTION CONTROL 19,603 19,603 EQUIPMENT......... 13 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 8,678 8,678 EQUIPMENT......... 14 VIRGINIA CLASS 74,209 74,209 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 15 LCS CLASS SUPPORT 47,078 47,078 EQUIPMENT......... 16 SUBMARINE BATTERIES 37,000 37,000 17 LPD CLASS SUPPORT 25,053 25,053 EQUIPMENT......... 18 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 12,986 12,986 SUPPORT EQUIP..... 19 DSSP EQUIPMENT..... 2,455 2,455 20 CG MODERNIZATION... 10,539 10,539 21 LCAC............... 14,431 14,431 22 UNDERWATER EOD 36,700 36,700 PROGRAMS.......... 23 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 119,902 119,902 MILLION........... 24 CHEMICAL WARFARE 3,678 3,678 DETECTORS......... 25 SUBMARINE LIFE 8,292 8,292 SUPPORT SYSTEM.... REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 27 REACTOR COMPONENTS. 286,744 286,744 OCEAN ENGINEERING 28 DIVING AND SALVAGE 8,780 8,780 EQUIPMENT......... SMALL BOATS 29 STANDARD BOATS..... 36,452 36,452 TRAINING EQUIPMENT 30 OTHER SHIPS 36,145 36,145 TRAINING EQUIPMENT PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 31 OPERATING FORCES 69,368 69,368 IPE............... OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 32 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS 106,328 106,328 33 LCS COMMON MISSION 45,966 45,966 MODULES EQUIPMENT. 34 LCS MCM MISSION 59,885 59,885 MODULES........... 35 LCS SUW MISSION 37,168 37,168 MODULES........... LOGISTIC SUPPORT 36 LSD MIDLIFE........ 77,974 77,974 SHIP SONARS 38 SPQ-9B RADAR....... 27,934 27,934 39 AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW 83,231 83,231 COMBAT SYSTEM..... 40 SSN ACOUSTICS...... 199,438 199,438 41 UNDERSEA WARFARE 9,394 9,394 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 42 SONAR SWITCHES AND 12,953 12,953 TRANSDUCERS....... 43 ELECTRONIC WARFARE 8,958 8,958 MILDEC............ ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 44 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 24,077 24,077 WARFARE SYSTEM.... 45 SSTD............... 11,925 11,925 46 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 94,338 94,338 SYSTEM............ 47 SURTASS............ 9,680 9,680 48 MARITIME PATROL AND 18,130 18,130 RECONNSAISANCE FORCE............. ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 49 AN/SLQ-32.......... 203,375 203,375 RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 50 SHIPBOARD IW 123,656 123,656 EXPLOIT........... 51 AUTOMATED 896 896 IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS)...... SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 52 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 49,475 49,475 EQUIPMENT PROG.... OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 53 COOPERATIVE 34,692 34,692 ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY........ 54 TRUSTED INFORMATION 396 396 SYSTEM (TIS)...... 55 NAVAL TACTICAL 15,703 15,703 COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS).... 56 ATDLS.............. 3,836 3,836 57 NAVY COMMAND AND 7,201 7,201 CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS)............ 58 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM 54,400 54,400 REPLACEMENT....... 59 SHALLOW WATER MCM.. 8,548 8,548 60 NAVSTAR GPS 11,765 11,765 RECEIVERS (SPACE). 61 AMERICAN FORCES 6,483 6,483 RADIO AND TV SERVICE........... 62 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 7,631 7,631 SUPPORT EQUIP..... TRAINING EQUIPMENT 63 OTHER TRAINING 53,644 53,644 EQUIPMENT......... AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 64 MATCALS............ 7,461 7,461 65 SHIPBOARD AIR 9,140 9,140 TRAFFIC CONTROL... 66 AUTOMATIC CARRIER 20,798 20,798 LANDING SYSTEM.... 67 NATIONAL AIR SPACE 19,754 19,754 SYSTEM............ 68 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC 8,909 8,909 CONTROL SYSTEMS... 69 LANDING SYSTEMS.... 13,554 13,554 70 ID SYSTEMS......... 38,934 38,934 71 NAVAL MISSION 14,131 14,131 PLANNING SYSTEMS.. OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 72 DEPLOYABLE JOINT 3,249 3,249 COMMAND & CONTROL. 73 MARITIME INTEGRATED 11,646 11,646 BROADCAST SYSTEM.. 74 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I 18,189 18,189 SYSTEMS........... 75 DCGS-N............. 17,350 17,350 76 CANES.............. 340,567 340,567 77 RADIAC............. 9,835 9,835 78 CANES-INTELL....... 59,652 59,652 79 GPETE.............. 6,253 6,253 80 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM 4,963 4,963 TEST FACILITY..... 81 EMI CONTROL 4,664 4,664 INSTRUMENTATION... 82 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 66,889 66,889 MILLION........... SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 84 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS 23,877 23,877 AUTOMATION........ 86 COMMUNICATIONS 28,001 28,001 ITEMS UNDER $5M... SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 87 SUBMARINE BROADCAST 7,856 7,856 SUPPORT........... 88 SUBMARINE 74,376 74,376 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT......... SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 89 SATELLITE 27,381 27,381 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS........... 90 NAVY MULTIBAND 215,952 215,952 TERMINAL (NMT).... SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 91 JCS COMMUNICATIONS 4,463 4,463 EQUIPMENT......... 92 ELECTRICAL POWER 778 778 SYSTEMS........... CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 94 INFO SYSTEMS 133,530 133,530 SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP)............ 95 MIO INTEL 1,000 1,000 EXPLOITATION TEAM. 96 CRYPTOLOGIC 12,251 12,251 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP............. OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 97 COAST GUARD 2,893 2,893 EQUIPMENT......... SONOBUOYS 99 SONOBUOYS--ALL 179,927 179,927 TYPES............. AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 100 WEAPONS RANGE 55,279 55,279 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 101 EXPEDITIONARY 8,792 8,792 AIRFIELDS......... 102 AIRCRAFT REARMING 11,364 11,364 EQUIPMENT......... 103 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH & 59,502 59,502 RECOVERY EQUIPMENT 104 METEOROLOGICAL 19,118 19,118 EQUIPMENT......... 105 DCRS/DPL........... 1,425 1,425 106 AVIATION LIFE 29,670 29,670 SUPPORT........... 107 AIRBORNE MINE 101,554 101,554 COUNTERMEASURES... 108 LAMPS MK III 18,293 18,293 SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT......... 109 PORTABLE ELECTRONIC 7,969 7,969 MAINTENANCE AIDS.. 110 OTHER AVIATION 5,215 5,215 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 111 AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS 4,827 4,827 INFORMATION SYSTEM (ALIS)............ SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 112 NAVAL FIRES CONTROL 1,188 1,188 SYSTEM............ 113 GUN FIRE CONTROL 4,447 4,447 EQUIPMENT......... SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 114 NATO SEASPARROW.... 58,368 58,368 115 RAM GMLS........... 491 491 116 SHIP SELF DEFENSE 51,858 51,858 SYSTEM............ 117 AEGIS SUPPORT 59,757 59,757 EQUIPMENT......... 118 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT 71,559 71,559 EQUIPMENT......... 119 VERTICAL LAUNCH 626 626 SYSTEMS........... 120 MARITIME INTEGRATED 2,779 2,779 PLANNING SYSTEM- MIPS.............. FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 121 STRATEGIC MISSILE 224,484 224,484 SYSTEMS EQUIP..... ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 122 SSN COMBAT CONTROL 85,678 85,678 SYSTEMS........... 123 SUBMARINE ASW 3,913 3,913 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 124 SURFACE ASW SUPPORT 3,909 3,909 EQUIPMENT......... 125 ASW RANGE SUPPORT 28,694 28,694 EQUIPMENT......... OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 126 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 46,586 46,586 DISPOSAL EQUIP.... 127 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 11,933 11,933 MILLION........... OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 128 ANTI-SHIP MISSILE 62,361 62,361 DECOY SYSTEM...... 129 SURFACE TRAINING 41,813 41,813 DEVICE MODS....... 130 SUBMARINE TRAINING 26,672 26,672 DEVICE MODS....... CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 131 PASSENGER CARRYING 5,600 5,600 VEHICLES.......... 132 GENERAL PURPOSE 3,717 3,717 TRUCKS............ 133 CONSTRUCTION & 10,881 10,881 MAINTENANCE EQUIP. 134 FIRE FIGHTING 14,748 14,748 EQUIPMENT......... 135 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 5,540 5,540 136 AMPHIBIOUS 5,741 5,741 EQUIPMENT......... 137 POLLUTION CONTROL 3,852 3,852 EQUIPMENT......... 138 ITEMS UNDER $5 25,757 25,757 MILLION........... 139 PHYSICAL SECURITY 1,182 1,182 VEHICLES.......... SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 140 MATERIALS HANDLING 14,250 14,250 EQUIPMENT......... 141 OTHER SUPPLY 6,401 6,401 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 142 FIRST DESTINATION 5,718 5,718 TRANSPORTATION.... 143 SPECIAL PURPOSE 22,597 22,597 SUPPLY SYSTEMS.... TRAINING DEVICES 144 TRAINING SUPPORT 22,527 22,527 EQUIPMENT......... COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 145 COMMAND SUPPORT 50,428 50,428 EQUIPMENT......... 146 EDUCATION SUPPORT 2,292 2,292 EQUIPMENT......... 147 MEDICAL SUPPORT 4,925 4,925 EQUIPMENT......... 149 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT 3,202 3,202 EQUIPMENT......... 151 OPERATING FORCES 24,294 24,294 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 152 C4ISR EQUIPMENT.... 4,287 4,287 153 ENVIRONMENTAL 18,276 18,276 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 154 PHYSICAL SECURITY 134,495 134,495 EQUIPMENT......... 155 ENTERPRISE 324,327 324,327 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY........ CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 156A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 12,140 12,140 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 157 SPARES AND REPAIR 317,234 317,234 PARTS............. OTHER PROCUREMENT, 6,310,257 0 6,310,257 NAVY Total........ PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 01 AAV7A1 PIP......... 32,360 32,360 02 LAV PIP............ 6,003 6,003 ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 03 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE 589 589 SUPPORT SYSTEM.... 04 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT 3,655 3,655 TOWED HOWITZER.... 05 HIGH MOBILITY 5,467 5,467 ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM............ 06 WEAPONS AND COMBAT 20,354 20,354 VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION........... OTHER SUPPORT 07 MODIFICATION KITS.. 38,446 38,446 08 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT 4,734 4,734 PROGRAM........... GUIDED MISSILES 09 GROUND BASED AIR 15,713 15,713 DEFENSE........... 10 JAVELIN............ 219 36,175 219 36,175 12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS 1,136 1,136 SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS- H)................ OTHER SUPPORT 13 MODIFICATION KITS.. 33,976 33,976 COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 14 UNIT OPERATIONS 16,273 16,273 CENTER............ REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 15 REPAIR AND TEST 41,063 41,063 EQUIPMENT......... OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 16 COMBAT SUPPORT 2,930 2,930 SYSTEM............ COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 18 ITEMS UNDER $5 1,637 1,637 MILLION (COMM & ELEC)............. 19 AIR OPERATIONS C2 18,394 18,394 SYSTEMS........... RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 20 RADAR SYSTEMS...... 114,051 114,051 21 RQ-21 UAS.......... 25 66,612 25 66,612 INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON- TEL) 22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 3,749 3,749 23 INTELLIGENCE 75,979 75,979 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 26 RQ-11 UAV.......... 1,653 1,653 27 DCGS-MC............ 9,494 9,494 OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON- TEL) 28 NIGHT VISION 6,171 6,171 EQUIPMENT......... OTHER SUPPORT (NON- TEL) 29 COMMON COMPUTER 121,955 121,955 RESOURCES......... 30 COMMAND POST 83,294 83,294 SYSTEMS........... 31 RADIO SYSTEMS...... 74,718 74,718 32 COMM SWITCHING & 47,613 47,613 CONTROL SYSTEMS... 33 COMM & ELEC 19,573 19,573 INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT........... CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 33A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 5,659 5,659 ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 34 COMMERCIAL 1,039 1,039 PASSENGER VEHICLES 35 COMMERCIAL CARGO 31,050 31,050 VEHICLES.......... TACTICAL VEHICLES 36 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV 36,333 36,333 (MYP)............. 37 MOTOR TRANSPORT 3,137 3,137 MODIFICATIONS..... 40 FAMILY OF TACTICAL 27,385 27,385 TRAILERS.......... OTHER SUPPORT 41 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 7,016 7,016 MILLION........... ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 42 ENVIRONMENTAL 14,377 14,377 CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT............ 43 BULK LIQUID 24,864 24,864 EQUIPMENT......... 44 TACTICAL FUEL 21,592 21,592 SYSTEMS........... 45 POWER EQUIPMENT 61,353 61,353 ASSORTED.......... 46 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT 4,827 4,827 EQUIPMENT......... 47 EOD SYSTEMS........ 40,011 40,011 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 48 PHYSICAL SECURITY 16,809 16,809 EQUIPMENT......... 49 GARRISON MOBILE 3,408 3,408 ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE)............ 50 MATERIAL HANDLING 48,549 48,549 EQUIP............. 51 FIRST DESTINATION 190 190 TRANSPORTATION.... GENERAL PROPERTY 52 FIELD MEDICAL 23,129 23,129 EQUIPMENT......... 53 TRAINING DEVICES... 8,346 8,346 54 CONTAINER FAMILY... 1,857 1,857 55 FAMILY OF 36,198 36,198 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT......... 56 RAPID DEPLOYABLE 2,390 2,390 KITCHEN........... OTHER SUPPORT 57 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 6,525 6,525 MILLION........... SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 58 SPARES AND REPAIR 13,700 13,700 PARTS............. PROCUREMENT, MARINE 1,343,511 0 1,343,511 CORPS Total....... AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 1 F-35............... 19 3,060,770 19 3,060,770 2 F-35--ADV PROC 363,783 363,783 (CY)............ OTHER AIRLIFT 5 C-130J............. 6 537,517 6 537,517 6 C-130J--ADV PROC 162,000 162,000 (CY)............ 7 HC-130J............ 1 132,121 1 132,121 8 HC-130J--ADV 88,000 88,000 PROC (CY)....... 9 MC-130J............ 4 389,434 4 389,434 10 MC-130J--ADV 104,000 104,000 PROC (CY)....... HELICOPTERS 15 CV-22 (MYP)........ 3 230,798 3 230,798 MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 17 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/ 6 2,541 6 2,541 C................. OTHER AIRCRAFT 20 TARGET DRONES...... 41 138,669 41 138,669 22 AC-130J............ 5 470,019 5 470,019 24 RQ-4............... 27,000 27,000 27 MQ-9............... 12 272,217 -30,000 12 242,217 Prior year [-30,000] savings......... 28 RQ-4 BLOCK 40 PROC. 1,747 1,747 STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 29 B-2A............... 20,019 20,019 30 B-1B............... 132,222 132,222 31 B-52............... 111,002 111,002 32 LARGE AIRCRAFT 27,197 27,197 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES... TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 33 A-10............... 47,598 47,598 34 F-15............... 354,624 354,624 35 F-16............... 11,794 11,794 36 F-22A.............. 285,830 285,830 37 F-35 MODIFICATIONS. 157,777 157,777 AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 38 C-5................ 2,456 2,456 39 C-5M............... 1,021,967 1,021,967 42 C-17A.............. 143,197 143,197 43 C-21............... 103 103 44 C-32A.............. 9,780 9,780 45 C-37A.............. 452 452 TRAINER AIRCRAFT 47 GLIDER MODS........ 128 128 48 T-6................ 6,427 6,427 49 T-1................ 277 277 50 T-38............... 28,686 28,686 OTHER AIRCRAFT 52 U-2 MODS........... 45,591 45,591 53 KC-10A (ATCA)...... 70,918 70,918 54 C-12............... 1,876 1,876 55 MC-12W............. 5,000 5,000 56 C-20 MODS.......... 192 192 57 VC-25A MOD......... 263 263 58 C-40............... 6,119 6,119 59 C-130.............. 58,577 47,300 105,877 C-130 avionics [47,300] upgrades........ 61 C-130J MODS........ 10,475 10,475 62 C-135.............. 46,556 46,556 63 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 34,494 34,494 64 RC-135............. 171,813 171,813 65 E-3................ 197,087 197,087 66 E-4................ 14,304 14,304 67 E-8................ 57,472 57,472 68 H-1................ 6,627 6,627 69 H-60............... 27,654 27,654 70 RQ-4 MODS.......... 9,313 9,313 71 HC/MC-130 16,300 16,300 MODIFICATIONS..... 72 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 6,948 6,948 73 MQ-1 MODS.......... 9,734 9,734 74 MQ-9 MODS.......... 102,970 -34,500 68,470 Lynx radar [-34,500] reduction....... 76 RQ-4 GSRA/CSRA MODS 30,000 30,000 77 CV-22 MODS......... 23,310 23,310 AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 78 INITIAL SPARES/ 463,285 463,285 REPAIR PARTS...... COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 79 AIRCRAFT 49,140 49,140 REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP..... POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 81 B-1................ 3,683 3,683 83 B-2A............... 43,786 43,786 84 B-52............... 7,000 7,000 87 C-17A.............. 81,952 81,952 89 C-135.............. 8,597 8,597 90 F-15............... 2,403 2,403 91 F-16............... 3,455 3,455 92 F-22A.............. 5,911 5,911 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 94 INDUSTRIAL 21,148 21,148 RESPONSIVENESS.... WAR CONSUMABLES 95 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 94,947 94,947 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 96 OTHER PRODUCTION 1,242,004 1,242,004 CHARGES........... CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 96A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 75,845 75,845 AIRCRAFT 11,398,901 -17,200 11,381,701 PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total....... MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT--BALLIST IC 1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT 39,104 39,104 EQ-BALLISTIC...... TACTICAL 2 JASSM.............. 183 291,151 183 291,151 3 SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X) 225 119,904 225 119,904 4 AMRAAM............. 199 340,015 199 340,015 5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 413 48,548 413 48,548 MISSILE........... 6 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 144 42,347 144 42,347 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 7 INDUSTR'L 752 752 PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION........ CLASS IV 9 MM III 21,635 21,635 MODIFICATIONS..... 10 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 276 276 11 AGM-88A HARM....... 580 580 12 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE 6,888 6,888 MISSILE (ALCM).... 13 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 5,000 5,000 MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 14 INITIAL SPARES/ 72,080 72,080 REPAIR PARTS...... SPACE PROGRAMS 15 ADVANCED EHF....... 379,586 379,586 16 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER 38,398 38,398 SATELLITES(SPACE). 17 GPS III SPACE 2 486,047 2 486,047 SEGMENT........... 17 GPS III SPACE -82,616 -82,616 SEGMENT........... 18 GPS III SPACE 74,167 74,167 SEGMENT........... 19 SPACEBORNE EQUIP 5,244 5,244 (COMSEC).......... 20 GLOBAL POSITIONING 55,997 55,997 (SPACE)........... 21 DEF METEOROLOGICAL 95,673 95,673 SAT PROG(SPACE)... 22 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 5 1,852,900 5 1,852,900 LAUNCH VEH(SPACE). 23 SBIR HIGH (SPACE).. 583,192 583,192 SPECIAL PROGRAMS 29 SPECIAL UPDATE 36,716 36,716 PROGRAMS.......... CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 29A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 829,702 829,702 MISSILE 5,343,286 0 5,343,286 PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total....... PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 1 ROCKETS............ 15,735 15,735 CARTRIDGES 2 CARTRIDGES......... 129,921 129,921 BOMBS 3 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 30,840 30,840 4 GENERAL PURPOSE 187,397 187,397 BOMBS............. 5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 6,965 188,510 6,965 188,510 MUNITION.......... OTHER ITEMS 6 CAD/PAD............ 35,837 35,837 7 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 7,531 7,531 DISPOSAL (EOD).... 8 SPARES AND REPAIR 499 499 PARTS............. 9 MODIFICATIONS...... 480 480 10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 9,765 9,765 MILLION........... FLARES 11 FLARES............. 55,864 55,864 FUZES 13 FUZES.............. 76,037 76,037 SMALL ARMS 14 SMALL ARMS......... 21,026 21,026 PROCUREMENT OF 759,442 0 759,442 AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE Total....... OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 1 PASSENGER CARRYING 2,048 2,048 VEHICLES.......... CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 8,019 8,019 VEHICLE........... 3 CAP VEHICLES....... 946 946 4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 7,138 7,138 MILLION........... SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 5 SECURITY AND 13,093 13,093 TACTICAL VEHICLES. 6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 13,983 13,983 MILLION........... FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 23,794 23,794 RESCUE VEHICLES... MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 8,669 8,669 MILLION........... BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & 6,144 6,144 CLEANING EQUIP.... 10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 1,580 1,580 MILLION........... COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 12 COMSEC EQUIPMENT... 149,661 149,661 13 MODIFICATIONS 726 726 (COMSEC).......... INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 14 INTELLIGENCE 2,789 2,789 TRAINING EQUIPMENT 15 INTELLIGENCE COMM 31,875 31,875 EQUIPMENT......... 16 ADVANCE TECH 452 452 SENSORS........... 17 MISSION PLANNING 14,203 14,203 SYSTEMS........... 18 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 46,232 46,232 & LANDING SYS..... 19 NATIONAL AIRSPACE 11,685 11,685 SYSTEM............ 20 BATTLE CONTROL 19,248 19,248 SYSTEM--FIXED..... 21 THEATER AIR CONTROL 19,292 19,292 SYS IMPROVEMENTS.. 22 WEATHER OBSERVATION 17,166 17,166 FORECAST.......... 23 STRATEGIC COMMAND 22,723 22,723 AND CONTROL....... 24 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 27,930 27,930 COMPLEX........... 25 TAC SIGNIT SPT..... 217 217 SPCL COMM- ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 27 GENERAL INFORMATION 49,627 49,627 TECHNOLOGY........ 28 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & 13,559 13,559 CONTROL SYS....... 29 MOBILITY COMMAND 11,186 11,186 AND CONTROL....... 30 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 43,238 43,238 SECURITY SYSTEM... 31 COMBAT TRAINING 10,431 10,431 RANGES............ 32 C3 COUNTERMEASURES. 13,769 13,769 33 GCSS-AF FOS........ 19,138 19,138 34 THEATER BATTLE MGT 8,809 8,809 C2 SYSTEM......... 35 AIR & SPACE 26,935 26,935 OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS............... AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 36 INFORMATION 80,558 80,558 TRANSPORT SYSTEMS. 38 AFNET.............. 97,588 97,588 39 VOICE SYSTEMS...... 8,419 8,419 40 USCENTCOM.......... 34,276 34,276 SPACE PROGRAMS 41 SPACE BASED IR 28,235 28,235 SENSOR PGM SPACE.. 42 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE.. 2,061 2,061 43 NUDET DETECTION SYS 4,415 4,415 SPACE............. 44 AF SATELLITE 30,237 30,237 CONTROL NETWORK SPACE............. 45 SPACELIFT RANGE 98,062 98,062 SYSTEM SPACE...... 46 MILSATCOM SPACE.... 105,935 105,935 47 SPACE MODS SPACE... 37,861 37,861 48 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM 7,171 7,171 ORGANIZATION AND BASE 49 TACTICAL C-E 83,537 83,537 EQUIPMENT......... 50 COMBAT SURVIVOR 11,884 11,884 EVADER LOCATER.... 51 RADIO EQUIPMENT.... 14,711 14,711 52 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL 10,275 10,275 EQUIPMENT......... 53 BASE COMM 50,907 50,907 INFRASTRUCTURE.... MODIFICATIONS 54 COMM ELECT MODS.... 55,701 55,701 PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 55 NIGHT VISION 14,524 14,524 GOGGLES........... 56 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 28,655 28,655 MILLION........... DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 57 MECHANIZED MATERIAL 9,332 9,332 HANDLING EQUIP.... BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 58 BASE PROCURED 16,762 16,762 EQUIPMENT......... 59 CONTINGENCY 33,768 33,768 OPERATIONS........ 60 PRODUCTIVITY 2,495 2,495 CAPITAL INVESTMENT 61 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 12,859 12,859 62 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 1,954 1,954 MILLION........... SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 64 DARP RC135......... 24,528 24,528 65 DCGS-AF............ 137,819 137,819 67 SPECIAL UPDATE 479,586 479,586 PROGRAM........... 68 DEFENSE SPACE 45,159 45,159 RECONNAISSANCE PROG.............. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 68A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 14,519,256 14,519,256 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 70 SPARES AND REPAIR 25,746 25,746 PARTS............. OTHER PROCUREMENT, 16,760,581 0 16,760,581 AIR FORCE Total... PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 1,291 1,291 MILLION........... MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 5,711 5,711 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 3 PERSONNEL 47,201 47,201 ADMINISTRATION.... MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 09 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 16,189 16,189 SECURITY.......... 12 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 66,075 66,075 13 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 83,881 83,881 MILLION........... 14 NET CENTRIC 2,572 2,572 ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES)... 15 DEFENSE INFORMATION 125,557 125,557 SYSTEM NETWORK.... 17 CYBER SECURITY 16,941 16,941 INITIATIVE........ MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 18 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 13,137 13,137 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 5 15,414 5 15,414 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 20 AUTOMATION/ 1,454 1,454 EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS......... MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY 21 EQUIPMENT.......... 978 978 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 22 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 5,020 5,020 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 23 VEHICLES........... 2 100 2 100 24 OTHER MAJOR 3 13,395 3 13,395 EQUIPMENT......... MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 26 THAAD.............. 36 581,005 36 581,005 27 AEGIS BMD.......... 52 580,814 52 580,814 28 BMDS AN/TPY-2 62,000 62,000 RADARS............ 29 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE 1 131,400 1 131,400 III............... 31 IRON DOME.......... 1 220,309 1 220,309 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 39 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 14,363 14,363 SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP)............ MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 40 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 37,345 37,345 OSD............... 41 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 16,678 16,678 INTELLIGENCE...... MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 42 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 14,792 14,792 TJS............... MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 43 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 35,259 35,259 WHS............... CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 43A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 544,272 544,272 AVIATION PROGRAMS 45 ROTARY WING 112,456 112,456 UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT....... 46 MH-60 MODERNIZATION 81,457 81,457 PROGRAM........... 47 NON-STANDARD 2,650 2,650 AVIATION.......... 48 U-28............... 56,208 56,208 49 MH-47 CHINOOK...... 19,766 19,766 50 RQ-11 UNMANNED 850 850 AERIAL VEHICLE.... 51 CV-22 MODIFICATION. 3 98,927 3 98,927 52 MQ-1 UNMANNED 20,576 20,576 AERIAL VEHICLE.... 53 MQ-9 UNMANNED 1,893 13,000 14,893 AERIAL VEHICLE.... Capability [13,000] Improvements.... 55 STUASL0............ 13,166 13,166 56 PRECISION STRIKE 107,687 107,687 PACKAGE........... 57 AC/MC-130J......... 51,870 51,870 59 C-130 MODIFICATIONS 71,940 71,940 SHIPBUILDING 61 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS. 37,439 37,439 AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 63 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 159,029 159,029 OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 66 INTELLIGENCE 79,819 79,819 SYSTEMS........... 68 DISTRIBUTED COMMON 14,906 14,906 GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS........... 70 OTHER ITEMS <$5M... 81,711 81,711 71 COMBATANT CRAFT 35,053 -1,156 33,897 SYSTEMS........... CCFLIR--Transfer [-1,156] at USSOCOM Request......... 74 SPECIAL PROGRAMS... 41,526 41,526 75 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 43,353 43,353 76 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 210,540 210,540 <$5M.............. 78 COMBAT MISSION 20,000 20,000 REQUIREMENTS...... 82 GLOBAL VIDEO 6,645 6,645 SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES........ 83 OPERATIONAL 25,581 25,581 ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE...... 89 OPERATIONAL 191,061 191,061 ENHANCEMENTS...... CBDP 91 INSTALLATION FORCE 14,271 14,271 PROTECTION........ 92 INDIVIDUAL 101,667 101,667 PROTECTION........ 94 JOINT BIO DEFENSE 13,447 13,447 PROGRAM (MEDICAL). 95 COLLECTIVE 20,896 20,896 PROTECTION........ 96 CONTAMINATION 144,540 144,540 AVOIDANCE......... PROCUREMENT, 4,534,083 11,844 4,545,927 DEFENSE-WIDE Total JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 01 JOINT URGENT 98,800 98,800 OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND.............. JOINT URGENT 98,800 0 98,800 OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND Total........ TOTAL, PROCUREMENT. 98,227,168 -75,879 98,151,289 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 2 SATURN ARCH (MIP).. 4 48,000 4 48,000 4 MQ-1 UAV........... 4 31,988 4 31,988 ROTARY 9 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 4 142,000 4 142,000 IIIB NEW BUILD.... 11 KIOWA WARRIOR WRA.. 14 163,800 14 163,800 14 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 10 386,000 10 386,000 AIRCRAFT 771,788 0 771,788 PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total............. MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 3 HELLFIRE SYS 550 54,000 550 54,000 SUMMARY........... ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 7 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 383 39,045 383 39,045 (GMLRS)........... 10 ARMY TACTICAL MSL 38 35,600 38 35,600 SYS (ATACMS)--SYS SUM............... MISSILE 128,645 0 128,645 PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total............. PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 2 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 4,400 4,400 TYPES............. 4 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 1,500 1,500 TYPES............. 5 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 5,000 5,000 TYPES............. 8 CTG, 30MM, ALL 60,000 60,000 TYPES............. MORTAR AMMUNITION 10 60MM MORTAR, ALL 5,000 5,000 TYPES............. ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 14 ARTILLERY 10,000 10,000 CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES.. 15 ARTILLERY 10,000 10,000 PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES......... 16 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 120 11,000 120 11,000 RANGE M982........ ROCKETS 21 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 57,000 57,000 ALL TYPES......... OTHER AMMUNITION 22 DEMOLITION 4,000 4,000 MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES............. 23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 3,000 3,000 24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 8,000 8,000 MISCELLANEOUS 28 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES.. 2,000 2,000 PROCUREMENT OF 180,900 0 180,900 AMMUNITION, ARMY Total............. OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 13 MINE-RESISTANT 321,040 321,040 AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS....... COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS 60 INSTALLATION INFO 25,000 25,000 INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM........... ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 67 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 7,200 7,200 71 CI HUMINT AUTO 5,980 5,980 REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS)...... 74 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 67 57,800 67 57,800 MORTAR RADAR...... 78 FAMILY OF 15,300 15,300 PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIE....... 79 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 4,221 4,221 SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES... 91 ARTILLERY ACCURACY 34 1,834 34 1,834 EQUIP............. 96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 137 21,000 137 21,000 (LLDR)............ 98 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 4 85,830 4 85,830 COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 146 FORCE PROVIDER..... 3 51,654 3 51,654 147 FIELD FEEDING 18 6,264 18 6,264 EQUIPMENT......... OTHER PROCUREMENT, 603,123 0 603,123 ARMY Total........ JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 1 ATTACK THE NETWORK. 417,700 417,700 JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT 2 DEFEAT THE DEVICE.. 248,886 248,886 FORCE TRAINING 3 TRAIN THE FORCE.... 106,000 -106,000 0 Program decrease [-106,000] STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4 OPERATIONS......... 227,414 -45,000 182,414 Program decrease [-45,000] JOINT IMPR 1,000,000 -151,000 849,000 EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND Total. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total COMBAT AIRCRAFT 11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 1 29,520 1 29,520 AH-1Z)............ OTHER AIRCRAFT 26 MQ-8 UAV........... 1 13,100 1 13,100 MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 31 AV-8 SERIES........ 57,652 57,652 33 F-18 SERIES........ 35,500 35,500 39 EP-3 SERIES........ 2,700 2,700 49 SPECIAL PROJECT 3,375 3,375 AIRCRAFT.......... 54 COMMON ECM 49,183 49,183 EQUIPMENT......... 55 COMMON AVIONICS 4,190 4,190 CHANGES........... 59 MAGTF EW FOR 20,700 20,700 AVIATION.......... AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 65 SPARES AND REPAIR 24,776 24,776 PARTS............. AIRCRAFT 240,696 0 240,696 PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total............. WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 9 HELLFIRE........... 270 27,000 270 27,000 10 LASER MAVERICK..... 500 58,000 500 58,000 11 STAND OFF PRECISION 9 1,500 9 1,500 GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM)........... WEAPONS 86,500 0 86,500 PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total............. PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 1 GENERAL PURPOSE 11,424 11,424 BOMBS............. 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 30,332 30,332 ALL TYPES......... 3 MACHINE GUN 8,282 8,282 AMMUNITION........ 6 AIR EXPENDABLE 31,884 31,884 COUNTERMEASURES... 11 OTHER SHIP GUN 409 409 AMMUNITION........ 12 SMALL ARMS & 11,976 11,976 LANDING PARTY AMMO 13 PYROTECHNIC AND 2,447 2,447 DEMOLITION........ 14 AMMUNITION LESS 7,692 7,692 THAN $5 MILLION... MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 15 SMALL ARMS 13,461 13,461 AMMUNITION........ 16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL 3,310 3,310 TYPES............. 17 40 MM, ALL TYPES... 6,244 6,244 18 60MM, ALL TYPES.... 3,368 3,368 19 81MM, ALL TYPES.... 9,162 9,162 20 120MM, ALL TYPES... 10,266 10,266 21 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES 1,887 1,887 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 1,611 1,611 23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES. 37,459 37,459 24 ARTILLERY, ALL 970 970 TYPES............. 25 DEMOLITION 418 418 MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES............. 26 FUZE, ALL TYPES.... 14,219 14,219 PROCUREMENT OF 206,821 0 206,821 AMMO, NAVY & MC Total............. OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 135 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 17,968 17,968 OTHER PROCUREMENT, 17,968 0 17,968 NAVY Total........ PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS GUIDED MISSILES 10 JAVELIN............ 180 29,334 180 29,334 11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW.. 105 105 OTHER SUPPORT 13 MODIFICATION KITS.. 16,081 16,081 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 15 REPAIR AND TEST 16,081 16,081 EQUIPMENT......... OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 17 MODIFICATION KITS.. 2,831 2,831 COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 18 ITEMS UNDER $5 8,170 8,170 MILLION (COMM & ELEC)............. INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON- TEL) 23 INTELLIGENCE 2,700 2,700 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 26 RQ-11 UAV.......... 2,830 2,830 OTHER SUPPORT (NON- TEL) 29 COMMON COMPUTER 4,866 4,866 RESOURCES......... 30 COMMAND POST 265 265 SYSTEMS........... ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 42 ENVIRONMENTAL 114 114 CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT............ 43 BULK LIQUID 523 523 EQUIPMENT......... 44 TACTICAL FUEL 365 365 SYSTEMS........... 45 POWER EQUIPMENT 2,004 2,004 ASSORTED.......... 47 EOD SYSTEMS........ 42,930 42,930 GENERAL PROPERTY 55 FAMILY OF 385 385 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT......... PROCUREMENT, MARINE 129,584 0 129,584 CORPS Total....... AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 32 LARGE AIRCRAFT 94,050 94,050 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES... OTHER AIRCRAFT 52 U-2 MODS........... 11,300 11,300 59 C-130.............. 1,618 1,618 64 RC-135............. 2,700 2,700 COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 79 AIRCRAFT 6,000 6,000 REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP..... AIRCRAFT 115,668 0 115,668 PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total....... MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 211 24,200 211 24,200 MISSILE........... MISSILE 24,200 0 24,200 PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total....... PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 1 ROCKETS............ 326 326 CARTRIDGES 2 CARTRIDGES......... 17,634 17,634 BOMBS 4 GENERAL PURPOSE 37,514 37,514 BOMBS............. 5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 2,879 84,459 2,879 84,459 MUNITION.......... FLARES 11 FLARES............. 14,973 14,973 12 FUZES.............. 3,859 3,859 SMALL ARMS 14 SMALL ARMS......... 1,200 1,200 PROCUREMENT OF 159,965 0 159,965 AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE Total....... OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 22 WEATHER OBSERVATION 1,800 1,800 FORECAST.......... SPACE PROGRAMS 46 MILSATCOM SPACE.... 5,695 5,695 BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 59 CONTINGENCY 60,600 60,600 OPERATIONS........ 61 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 68,000 68,000 SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 68 DEFENSE SPACE 58,250 58,250 RECONNAISSANCE PROG.............. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 68A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 2,380,501 2,380,501 OTHER PROCUREMENT, 2,574,846 0 2,574,846 AIR FORCE Total... PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 12 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 4,760 4,760 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 41A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 78,986 78,986 AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 62 ORDNANCE 25 2,841 25 2,841 REPLENISHMENT..... OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 66 INTELLIGENCE 1 13,300 1 13,300 SYSTEMS........... 84 SOLDIER PROTECTION 53 8,034 53 8,034 AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS........... 89 OPERATIONAL 126 3,354 126 3,354 ENHANCEMENTS...... PROCUREMENT, 111,275 0 111,275 DEFENSE-WIDE Total JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 1 JOINT URGENT 15,000 15,000 OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND.............. JOINT URGENT 15,000 0 15,000 OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND Total........ TOTAL, PROCUREMENT. 6,366,979 -151,000 6,215,979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senate Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ..................... BASIC RESEARCH 1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 21,803 21,803 INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. 2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 221,901 221,901 3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 79,359 79,359 INITIATIVES. 4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 113,662 113,662 RESEARCH CENTERS. ..................... BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL..... 436,725 0 436,725 ..................... ..................... APPLIED RESEARCH 5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY..... 26,585 26,585 6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 43,170 43,170 SURVIVABILITY. 7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP.............. 36,293 36,293 8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY...... 55,615 55,615 9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 17,585 17,585 TECHNOLOGY. 10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY....... 51,528 51,528 11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS 26,162 26,162 TECHNOLOGY. 12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 24,063 24,063 SIMULATION. 13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 64,589 64,589 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY. 14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY.... 68,300 10,000 78,300 ..................... WIAMan schedule [10,000] adjustment. 15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 4,490 4,490 EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY. 16 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 7,818 7,818 PROGRAM. 17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 37,798 37,798 TECHNOLOGY. 18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND 59,021 59,021 ELECTRONIC DEVICES. 19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.. 43,426 43,426 20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS...... 20,574 20,574 21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 21,339 21,339 TECHNOLOGY. 22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 20,316 20,316 TECHNOLOGY. 23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 34,209 34,209 COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. 24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 10,439 10,439 TECHNOLOGY. 25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 70,064 70,064 TECHNOLOGY. 26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/ 17,654 17,654 TRAINING TECHNOLOGY. 27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY.... 31,546 31,546 28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....... 93,340 93,340 ..................... APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL... 885,924 10,000 895,924 ..................... ..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 56,056 56,056 TECHNOLOGY. 30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED 62,032 62,032 TECHNOLOGY. 31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 81,080 81,080 TECHNOLOGY. 32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 63,919 63,919 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 97,043 97,043 AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION 5,866 5,866 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 7,800 7,800 TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 36 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 40,416 40,416 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............. 9,166 9,166 38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING 13,627 13,627 & SIMULATION SYSTEMS. 39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............. 10,667 10,667 41 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 15,054 15,054 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 42 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............. 3,194 3,194 43 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............. 2,367 2,367 44 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 25,348 25,348 TECHNOLOGY. 45 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET 64,009 64,009 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 46 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............. 11,083 11,083 47 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE 180,662 180,662 COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM. 48 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 22,806 22,806 BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 49 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,030 5,030 PROGRAM. 50 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 36,407 36,407 TECHNOLOGY. 51 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 11,745 11,745 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS. 52 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 23,717 23,717 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 53 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL 33,012 33,012 COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY. ..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 882,106 0 882,106 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ..................... ..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE 15,301 15,301 SYSTEMS INTEGRATION. 55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 13,592 13,592 INTEGRATION. 56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 10,625 10,625 BARRIER--ADV DEV. 58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 30,612 30,612 AMMUNITION. 59 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT 49,989 49,989 SYSTEM (ATAS). 60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 6,703 6,703 SURVIVABILITY. 61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 6,894 6,894 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV DEV. 62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 9,066 9,066 ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT. 63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2,633 2,633 TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL. 64 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION 272,384 272,384 NETWORK-TACTICAL--DEM/ VAL. 65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 3,874 3,874 DEVELOPMENT. 66 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV........ 5,018 5,018 67 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 11,556 11,556 EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV. 69 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV. 15,603 15,603 70 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 14,159 14,159 DEVELOPMENT. 71 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 79 79 SERVICE. 72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 55,605 55,605 INITIATIVES. 74 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 79,232 79,232 CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2- INTERCEPT (IFPC2). 75 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE 4,476 4,476 (BUDGET ACTIVITY 4). 76 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS........... 28,991 -28,991 0 ..................... LEMV termination...... [-28,991] ..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 636,392 -28,991 607,401 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES TOTAL. ..................... ..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 77 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS........ 76,588 76,588 78 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS.. 73,309 73,309 79 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 154,621 154,621 DEVELOPMENT. 80 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO..... 31,826 31,826 81 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 23,341 23,341 VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR). 82 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS 4,839 4,839 SYSTEM. 83 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............. 23,841 23,841 84 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS. 79,855 79,855 85 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES. 2,140 2,140 86 0604611A JAVELIN.................. 5,002 5,002 87 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 21,321 21,321 VEHICLES. 88 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL...... 514 514 93 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 43,405 43,405 DEV. 94 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 1,939 1,939 AND EQUIPMENT. 95 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 18,980 18,980 DEVICES--ENG DEV. 97 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 18,294 18,294 CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV. 98 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 17,013 17,013 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 99 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 6,701 6,701 DEVELOPMENT. 100 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 14,575 14,575 SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG DEV. 101 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 27,634 27,634 TRAINER (CATT) CORE. 102 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 193,748 193,748 INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION. 103 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS-- 15,721 15,721 ENG DEV. 104 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 41,703 41,703 EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV. 105 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 7,379 7,379 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS-- ENG DEV. 106 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 39,468 39,468 BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV. 107 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 92,285 92,285 ENG DEV. 108 0604814A ARTILLERY MUNITIONS--EMD. 8,209 8,209 109 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 22,958 22,958 CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE. 110 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT........ 1,549 1,549 111 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 17,342 -17,115 227 BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS). ..................... Excess to requirement. [-17,115] 112 0604823A FIREFINDER............... 47,221 47,221 113 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 48,477 48,477 DEM/VAL. 114 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD... 80,613 40,700 121,313 ..................... Transfer from WTCV 6 [40,700] at Army Request. 117 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 68,814 68,814 DEVELOPMENT. 118 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 137,290 137,290 PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A). 119 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 116,298 116,298 VEHICLE (AMPV). 120 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 68,148 68,148 CENTER (JTNC). 121 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 33,219 33,219 SYSTEM (JTRS). 122 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 15,127 15,127 MISSILE (JAGM). 124 0605456A PAC-3/MSE MISSILE........ 68,843 68,843 125 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 364,649 364,649 MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD). 126 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE.... 592,201 592,201 127 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR..... 10,382 10,382 128 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 21,143 21,143 INTEGRATION (MIP). 129 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 84,230 84,230 VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH. 130 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 3,465 3,465 131 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 10,806 10,806 DEVELOPMENT. ..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 2,857,026 23,585 2,880,611 DEMONSTRATION TOTAL. ..................... ..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 132 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 16,934 16,934 DEVELOPMENT. 133 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS 13,488 13,488 DEVELOPMENT. 134 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 46,672 46,672 135 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER....... 11,919 11,919 136 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL..... 193,658 193,658 137 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 37,158 37,158 PROGRAM. 139 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 340,659 340,659 FACILITIES. 140 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 66,061 66,061 INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS. 141 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 43,280 43,280 ANALYSIS. 143 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION... 6,025 6,025 144 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 7,349 7,349 RDT&E ACTIVITIES. 145 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 19,809 19,809 146 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 5,941 5,941 ITEMS. 147 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 55,504 55,504 TESTING. 148 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER... 65,274 65,274 149 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 1,283 1,283 COLLABORATION & INTEG. 150 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES... 82,035 82,035 151 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 33,853 5,000 38,853 ACTIVITIES. ..................... Internet mapping....... [5,000] 152 0605805A MUNITIONS 53,340 53,340 STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY. 153 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5,193 5,193 TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT. 154 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 54,175 54,175 ..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 1,159,610 5,000 1,164,610 TOTAL. ..................... ..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 156 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 110,576 110,576 PROGRAM. 157 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION..... 3,717 3,717 159 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT 70,053 70,053 IMPROVEMENT. 160 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT 98,450 98,450 OFFICE. 161 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY 30,940 30,940 TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM. 162 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE 177,532 177,532 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. 163 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.. 36,495 36,495 164 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 257,187 19,984 277,171 PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. ..................... Transfer from APA 11 [19,984] at Army request. 165 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 315 315 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 166 0203758A DIGITIZATION............. 6,186 6,186 167 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 1,578 1,578 PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 168 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 62,100 62,100 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. 169 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............. 18,778 18,778 170 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 7,108 7,108 SYSTEM. 173 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 7,600 7,600 ACTIVITIES. 174 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 9,357 9,357 SECURITY PROGRAM. 175 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 41,225 41,225 SYSTEM. 176 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 18,197 18,197 (SPACE). 177 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 14,215 14,215 CONTROL SYSTEM. 179 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 33,533 33,533 VEHICLES. 180 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 27,622 27,622 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 181 0305219A MQ-1C GRAY EAGLE UAS..... 10,901 10,901 182 0305232A RQ-11 UAV................ 2,321 2,321 183 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................. 12,031 12,031 185 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 12,449 12,449 INTELLIGENCE. 186 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 56,136 56,136 PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES. 186A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 4,717 4,717 ..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 1,131,319 19,984 1,151,303 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 7,989,102 29,578 8,018,680 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY. ..................... ..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ..................... BASIC RESEARCH 1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 112,617 112,617 INITIATIVES. 2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 18,230 18,230 INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. 3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 484,459 484,459 ..................... BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL..... 615,306 0 615,306 ..................... ..................... APPLIED RESEARCH 4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 104,513 104,513 RESEARCH. 5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 145,307 145,307 RESEARCH. 6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING 47,334 47,334 FORCE TECHNOLOGY. 7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 34,163 34,163 RESEARCH. 8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 49,689 49,689 APPLIED RESEARCH. 9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 97,701 97,701 APPLIED RESEARCH. 10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 45,685 45,685 ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH. 11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,060 6,060 APPLIED RESEARCH. 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 103,050 103,050 RESEARCH. 13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 169,710 169,710 APPLIED RESEARCH. 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 31,326 31,326 WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH. ..................... APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL... 834,538 0 834,538 ..................... ..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 48,201 48,201 TECHNOLOGY. 16 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 28,328 28,328 TECHNOLOGY. 19 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 56,179 56,179 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 20 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 132,400 132,400 DEMONSTRATION (ATD). 21 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 11,854 11,854 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 22 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 247,931 247,931 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 23 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,760 4,760 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 25 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 51,463 51,463 EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS. 26 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 2,000 2,000 WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. ..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 583,116 0 583,116 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ..................... ..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 27 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 42,246 42,246 APPLICATIONS. 28 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY... 5,591 5,591 29 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,262 3,262 AND CONTROL. 30 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS......... 74 74 31 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.. 7,964 7,964 32 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 5,257 5,257 RECONNAISSANCE. 33 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 1,570 1,570 TECHNOLOGY. 34 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 168,040 168,040 MINE COUNTERMEASURES. 35 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 88,649 88,649 DEFENSE. 36 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS 83,902 83,902 DEVELOPMENT. 37 0603525N PILOT FISH............... 108,713 108,713 38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 9,316 9,316 39 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER.......... 77,108 77,108 40 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL..... 762 762 41 0603553N SURFACE ASW.............. 2,349 2,349 42 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 852,977 852,977 DEVELOPMENT. 43 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 8,764 8,764 WARFARE SYSTEMS. 44 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 20,501 20,501 DESIGN. 45 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 27,052 27,052 FEASIBILITY STUDIES. 46 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 428,933 428,933 SYSTEMS. 47 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE 27,154 27,154 MACHINERY SYSTEMS. 48 0603576N CHALK EAGLE.............. 519,140 519,140 49 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 406,389 406,389 (LCS). 50 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 36,570 36,570 51 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 8,404 8,404 52 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 136,967 136,967 VEHICLES. 53 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND 1,489 1,489 COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM. 54 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 38,422 38,422 ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT. 55 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT... 69,312 69,312 56 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 9,196 9,196 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 57 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 18,850 18,850 58 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM...... 45,618 45,618 59 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT... 3,019 3,019 60 0603734N CHALK CORAL.............. 144,951 144,951 61 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC 5,797 5,797 PRODUCTIVITY. 62 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE............ 308,131 308,131 63 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA............ 195,189 195,189 64 0603751N RETRACT ELM.............. 56,358 56,358 65 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN........... 55,378 55,378 66 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES........ 48,842 48,842 67 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 7,509 7,509 DEVELOPMENT. 68 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 5,075 5,075 69 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 51,178 51,178 TESTING. 70 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 205,615 205,615 AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/ VAL. 72 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 37,227 37,227 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM). 73 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION 169 169 OPTIMIZATION. 74 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO 20,874 20,874 CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW). 75 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 2,257 2,257 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 76 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 38,327 38,327 WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT. 77 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 135,985 -100,000 35,985 WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT. ..................... Adjust program to more [-100,000] realistic schedule. 78 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 50,362 50,362 VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH. 79 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 8,448 8,448 MIP. 80 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 153 153 DEVELOPMENT--MIP. ..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 4,641,385 -100,000 4,541,385 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES TOTAL. ..................... ..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 81 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT... 40,558 40,558 82 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.. 35,825 35,825 83 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.... 99,891 99,891 84 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 17,565 17,565 UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT. 85 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 4,026 4,026 ENGINEERING. 86 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 1,791 1,791 87 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM... 11,725 11,725 88 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.. 68,463 68,463 89 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE......... 152,041 152,041 90 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............. 47,123 47,123 91 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.. 30,208 30,208 92 0604262N V-22A.................... 43,084 43,084 93 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 11,401 11,401 DEVELOPMENT. 94 0604269N EA-18.................... 11,138 11,138 95 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 34,964 34,964 DEVELOPMENT. 96 0604273N VH-71A EXECUTIVE HELO 94,238 94,238 DEVELOPMENT. 97 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 257,796 257,796 (NGJ). 98 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 3,302 3,302 SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY). 99 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 240,298 240,298 SYSTEM ENGINEERING. 100 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 1,214 1,214 INTEGRATION. 101 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) 46,007 46,007 102 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 75,592 75,592 IMPROVEMENTS. 103 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............. 117,854 117,854 104 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK 10,080 10,080 FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION. 105 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 21,413 21,413 CONTROL--COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING. 106 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED 146,683 146,683 AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM. 107 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 275,871 275,871 SENSORS. 108 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 89,672 89,672 MODERNIZATION. 109 0604504N AIR CONTROL.............. 13,754 13,754 110 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION 69,615 69,615 SYSTEMS. 112 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN........... 121,566 121,566 113 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 49,143 49,143 WARFARE SYSTEM. 114 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ 155,254 20,000 175,254 LIVE FIRE T&E. ..................... Increased LHA-8 design [20,000] efforts. 115 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 3,689 3,689 RESOURCES. 116 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT......... 5,041 5,041 117 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 26,444 26,444 DEVELOPMENT. 118 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 8,897 8,897 ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT. 119 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 6,233 6,233 SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS. 120 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 442 442 SYSTEMS. 121 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 130,360 130,360 & CONTROL). 122 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 50,209 50,209 (ENGAGE: HARD KILL). 123 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 164,799 164,799 (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW). 124 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING. 1,984 1,984 125 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 9,458 9,458 126 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM..... 51,430 51,430 127 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 512,631 512,631 (JSF)--EMD. 128 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 534,187 534,187 (JSF)--EMD. 129 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5,564 5,564 DEVELOPMENT. 130 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 69,659 69,659 DEVELOPMENT. 132 0605212N CH-53K RDTE.............. 503,180 503,180 133 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 5,500 5,500 MISSILE (JAGM). 134 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 317,358 317,358 AIRCRAFT (MMA). 135 0204202N DDG-1000................. 187,910 187,910 136 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 2,140 2,140 MIP. 137 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 9,406 9,406 SYSTEMS. 138 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS 22,800 22,800 PROGRAM. ..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 5,028,476 20,000 5,048,476 DEMONSTRATION TOTAL. ..................... ..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 139 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 43,261 43,261 DEVELOPMENT. 140 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS 71,872 71,872 DEVELOPMENT. 141 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 38,033 38,033 142 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 1,352 1,352 MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION. 143 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 5,566 5,566 SUPPORT--NAVY. 144 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES 48,345 48,345 146 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 637 637 SERVICES. 147 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 76,585 76,585 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT. 148 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL 3,221 3,221 SUPPORT. 149 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 72,725 72,725 TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT. 150 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 141,778 141,778 SUPPORT. 151 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION 331,219 331,219 SUPPORT. 152 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 16,565 16,565 EVALUATION CAPABILITY. 153 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 3,265 3,265 WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT. 154 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 7,134 7,134 RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT. 155 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 24,082 24,082 SUPPORT. 156 0305885N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 497 497 ACTIVITIES. ..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL. 886,137 0 886,137 ..................... ..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 159 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS.... 699 699 160 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR 20,961 20,961 VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT. 162 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS 35 35 163 0605525N CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY 2,460 2,460 (COD) FOLLOW ON. 164 0605555N STRIKE WEAPONS 9,757 9,757 DEVELOPMENT. 165 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 98,057 98,057 SYSTEM SUPPORT. 166 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 31,768 31,768 PROGRAM. 167 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 1,464 1,464 WARFARE DEVELOPMENT. 168 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 21,729 21,729 COMMUNICATIONS. 169 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY 13,561 13,561 TRANSITION (RTT). 170 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS......... 131,118 131,118 171 0204152N E-2 SQUADRONS............ 1,971 1,971 172 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 46,155 46,155 (TACTICAL). 173 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT.......... 2,374 2,374 174 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 12,407 12,407 MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC). 175 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 41,609 41,609 SYSTEM. 176 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL 7,240 7,240 SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT). 177 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 78,208 78,208 RADAR (G/ATOR). 178 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 45,124 45,124 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 179 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT 2,703 2,703 SUPPORT. 180 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 19,563 19,563 READINESS SUPPORT. 181 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT......... 13,586 13,586 182 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS...... 197,538 197,538 183 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 31,863 31,863 INTEGRATION. 184 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP.............. 12,806 12,806 185 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS.... 88,607 88,607 187 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 116,928 116,928 SYSTEMS. 188 0206313M MARINE CORPS 178,753 178,753 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS. 189 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 139,594 -20,875 118,719 COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS. ..................... Marine Personnel [-20,875] Carrier program deferred. 190 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 42,647 42,647 SERVICES SUPPORT. 191 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 34,394 34,394 ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP). 192 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 39,159 39,159 193 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 2,613 2,613 TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM). 194 0208058N JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL 986 986 (JHSV). 199 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 66,231 66,231 (SPACE). 200 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 24,476 24,476 NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES). 201 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 23,531 23,531 SECURITY PROGRAM. 206 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND 742 742 OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE (METOC). 207 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 4,804 4,804 PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES. 208 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,381 8,381 VEHICLES. 211 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,535 5,535 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 212 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 19,718 19,718 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 213 0305220N RQ-4 UAV................. 375,235 375,235 214 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................. 48,713 48,713 215 0305232M RQ-11 UAV................ 102 102 216 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................. 710 710 217 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 5,013 5,013 UAS (STUASL0). 219 0305239M RQ-21A................... 11,122 11,122 220 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 28,851 28,851 DEVELOPMENT. 221 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 5,116 5,116 SUPPORT. 222 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 28,042 28,042 IF). 223 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.. 50,933 50,933 224 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 4,998 4,998 (MARITECH). 224A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 1,185,132 1,185,132 ..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 3,385,822 -20,875 3,364,947 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 15,974,780 -100,875 15,873,905 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY. ..................... ..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ..................... BASIC RESEARCH 1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 373,151 373,151 2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 138,333 138,333 INITIATIVES. 3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER 13,286 13,286 RESEARCH INITIATIVES. ..................... BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL..... 524,770 0 524,770 ..................... ..................... APPLIED RESEARCH 4 0602102F MATERIALS................ 116,846 116,846 5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 119,672 119,672 TECHNOLOGIES. 6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 89,483 89,483 APPLIED RESEARCH. 7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION..... 197,546 197,546 8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS........ 127,539 127,539 9 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY......... 104,063 104,063 10 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 81,521 81,521 11 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY 112,845 112,845 TECHNOLOGY. 12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 138,161 138,161 SCIENCES AND METHODS. 13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER 40,217 40,217 RESEARCH. ..................... APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL... 1,127,893 0 1,127,893 ..................... ..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 39,572 39,572 WEAPON SYSTEMS. 15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 12,800 12,800 TECHNOLOGY (S&T). 16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE 30,579 30,579 SENSORS. 17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 77,347 77,347 DEMO. 18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 149,321 149,321 POWER TECHNOLOGY. 19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 49,128 49,128 TECHNOLOGY. 20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 68,071 68,071 TECHNOLOGY. 21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 26,299 26,299 SYSTEM (MSSS). 22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 20,967 20,967 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 33,996 33,996 TECHNOLOGY. 24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS 19,000 19,000 TECHNOLOGY. 25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 41,353 41,353 PROGRAM. 26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 49,093 49,093 DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION. ..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 617,526 0 617,526 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ..................... ..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 28 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 3,983 3,983 DEVELOPMENT. 29 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 3,874 3,874 EQUIPMENT. 32 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 27,024 27,024 33 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 15,899 15,899 TECHNOLOGY. 34 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,568 4,568 DEVELOPMENT. 35 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE 379 379 COOPERATIVE R&D. 36 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM 28,764 28,764 (SPP). 38 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 86,737 86,737 BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/ VAL. 40 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION--DEM/ 953 953 VAL. 42 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE........ 379,437 379,437 44 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 2,606 2,606 45 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 103 103 TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM. 47 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 16,018 16,018 MATURATION. 49 0604458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER... 58,861 58,861 50 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 2,500 2,500 MUNITION. 51 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS 21,175 21,175 FUZE DEVELOPMENT. 52 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 0 10,000 10,000 SPACE. ..................... Program increase...... [10,000] 53 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.. 13,636 13,636 54 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 2,799 2,799 STRATCOM--SPACE ACTIVITIES. 55 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 70,160 70,160 RANGE RADAR (3DELRR). 56 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 137,233 137,233 POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE). ..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 876,709 10,000 886,709 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES TOTAL. ..................... ..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 58 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 977 977 DEVELOPMENT. 61 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 3,601 3,601 FLIGHT TRAINING. 62 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 1,971 1,971 DEVELOPMENT. 64 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 51,456 -15,200 36,256 ENTERPRISE. ..................... Unjustified request... [-15,200] 65 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 50 50 EQUIPMENT. 66 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 115,000 115,000 (SDB)--EMD. 67 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS..... 23,930 23,930 68 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 400,258 400,258 SYSTEMS. 69 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC 4,575 4,575 ATTACK. 70 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 352,532 352,532 SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD. 71 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 16,284 16,284 DEVELOPMENT. 72 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............. 2,564 2,564 73 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT..... 17,036 17,036 74 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS..... 7,273 7,273 75 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES... 33,200 33,200 78 0604800F F-35--EMD................ 816,335 816,335 79 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL 145,442 145,442 BALLISTIC MISSILE--EMD. 80 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 27,963 27,963 VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)-- EMD. 81 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF 5,000 5,000 WEAPON. 82 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.. 129,411 129,411 83 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 131,100 131,100 INCREMENT 3.2B. 84 0605221F KC-46.................... 1,558,590 1,558,590 85 0605229F CSAR HH-60 393,558 393,558 RECAPITALIZATION. 86 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E.... 6,242 6,242 87 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 272,872 272,872 (SPACE). 88 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).. 124,805 124,805 89 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 13,948 13,948 (SPACE). 90 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 303,500 303,500 SYSTEM. 91 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 67,874 67,874 MODERNIZATION. 94 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 4,663 4,663 TRAINING. 97 0401318F CV-22.................... 46,705 46,705 ..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 5,078,715 -15,200 5,063,515 DEMONSTRATION TOTAL. ..................... ..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 99 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 17,690 17,690 DEVELOPMENT. 100 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 34,841 34,841 101 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE... 32,956 32,956 103 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 13,610 13,610 & EVALUATION. 104 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 742,658 742,658 SUPPORT. 105 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 14,203 14,203 PROGRAM (SPACE). 106 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP). 13,000 13,000 107 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION 44,160 44,160 AND MODERNIZATION--TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT. 108 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 27,643 27,643 TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT. 109 0606323F MULTI-SERVICE SYSTEMS 13,935 13,935 ENGINEERING INITIATIVE. 110 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 192,348 192,348 (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE. 111 0702806F ACQUISITION AND 28,647 28,647 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT. 112 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING... 315 315 114 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 3,785 3,785 ..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL. 1,179,791 0 1,179,791 ..................... ..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 115 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 383,500 383,500 III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT. 117 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE... 5,000 5,000 118 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL 90,097 90,097 AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS). 119 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 32,086 32,086 EXECUTIVE AGENCY. 121 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS........... 24,007 24,007 122 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE 450 450 MISSILE (ALCM). 123 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS........... 19,589 19,589 124 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS............ 100,194 100,194 125 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING 37,448 37,448 SYSTEM--USSTRATCOM. 128 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 1,700 1,700 CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM. 130 0203761F WARFIGHTER RAPID 3,844 3,844 ACQUISITION PROCESS (WRAP) RAPID TRANSITION FUND. 131 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................. 128,328 128,328 133 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS........... 9,614 9,614 134 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS........... 177,298 177,298 135 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS.......... 244,289 244,289 136 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 13,138 13,138 SUPPRESSION. 137 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS.......... 328,542 328,542 138 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS........... 33,000 33,000 139 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 15,460 15,460 140 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 84,172 84,172 TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM). 142 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND 2,582 2,582 RECOVERY. 143 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE 542 542 144 0207247F AF TENCAP................ 89,816 -76,800 13,016 ..................... Reduction fighter [-76,800] communications POD. 145 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,075 1,075 PROCUREMENT. 146 0207253F COMPASS CALL............. 10,782 10,782 147 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 139,369 139,369 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 149 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 6,373 6,373 STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM). 150 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 22,820 22,820 CENTER (AOC). 151 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 7,029 7,029 CENTER (CRC). 152 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 186,256 186,256 CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS). 153 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 743 743 SYSTEMS. 156 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 4,471 4,471 SYSTEM ACTIVITIES. 158 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL 10,250 10,250 PARTY-MOD. 159 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK. 1,431 1,431 160 0207449F COMMAND AND CONTROL (C2) 7,329 7,329 CONSTELLATION. 161 0207452F DCAPES................... 15,081 15,081 162 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET 13,248 9,900 23,148 ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS). ..................... Continue T-3 testing [9,900] operations. 163 0207590F SEEK EAGLE............... 24,342 24,342 164 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 10,448 10,448 SIMULATION. 165 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 5,512 5,512 CENTERS. 166 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 3,301 3,301 EXERCISES. 167 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS. 62,605 62,605 169 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES. 68,099 68,099 170 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 14,047 14,047 OPERATIONS. 171 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 5,853 5,853 OPERATIONS. 179 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 12,197 12,197 INTELLIGENCE. 180 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 18,267 18,267 OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC). 181 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 36,288 36,288 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN). 182 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 90,231 10,000 100,231 SECURITY PROGRAM. ..................... ASACoE program........ [10,000] 183 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 725 725 SYSTEM. 185 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS...... 140,170 140,170 187 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT 117,110 117,110 ENTERPRISE. 190 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,430 4,430 MANAGEMENT (GATM). 191 0305103F CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 2,048 2,048 192 0305105F DOD CYBER CRIME CENTER... 288 288 193 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 35,698 35,698 (SPACE). 194 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE.......... 24,667 24,667 195 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 35,674 35,674 APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS). 196 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS........... 21,186 21,186 199 0305128F SECURITY AND 195 195 INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES. 200 0305145F ARMS CONTROL 1,430 1,430 IMPLEMENTATION. 201 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 330 330 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. 206 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST 3,696 3,696 AND EVALUATION CENTER. 207 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, 2,469 2,469 INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 208 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,289 8,289 SERVICE (IBS). 209 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 13,345 13,345 (SPACE). 211 0305202F DRAGON U-2............... 18,700 18,700 212 0305205F ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL 3,000 3,000 VEHICLES. 213 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 37,828 12,500 50,328 SYSTEMS. ..................... Blue Devil Replacement [15,000] WAMI/NVDF. ..................... Unjustified amount.... [-2,500] 214 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 13,491 13,491 SYSTEMS. 215 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 7,498 7,498 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 216 0305219F MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV...... 3,326 3,326 217 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................. 134,406 134,406 218 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 7,413 7,413 COLLABORATIVE TARGETING. 219 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL)... 40,503 40,503 220 0305238F NATO AGS................. 264,134 264,134 221 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS 23,016 23,016 ENTERPRISE. 222 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT.... 221,276 221,276 223 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM..... 58,523 58,523 224 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.. 2,218 2,218 226 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 50,547 50,547 (SPACE). 227 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 18,807 18,807 OPERATIONS. 229 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING 1,079 1,079 (SEW). 230 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON... 400 400 231 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS 61,492 61,492 (IF). 232 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)....... 109,134 109,134 233 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM........... 22,443 22,443 234 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 4,116 4,116 COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM). 238 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 44,553 44,553 AIRLIFT. 239 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 6,213 6,213 CONTROL. 240 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 1,605 1,605 IF). 242 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 95,238 95,238 TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT). 243 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS 10,925 10,925 DEVELOPMENT. 244 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING.... 1,347 1,347 245 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL 65 65 ACTIVITIES. 246 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 1,083 1,083 AGENCY. 247 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 1,577 1,577 PROGRAM. 248 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 5,990 5,990 249 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 786 786 ANALYSIS AGENCY. 250 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION-- 654 654 ADMINISTRATIVE. 251 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 135,735 135,735 INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 251A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 11,874,528 0 11,874,528 ..................... Reduction to [-70,000] classified program. ..................... Increase to classified [70,000] program. ..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 16,297,542 -44,400 16,253,142 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 25,702,946 -49,600 25,653,346 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF. ..................... ..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ..................... BASIC RESEARCH 1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 45,837 45,837 INITIATIVE. 2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 315,033 315,033 3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH 11,171 11,171 INITIATIVES. 4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 49,500 49,500 RESEARCH SCIENCE. 5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE 84,271 84,271 EDUCATION PROGRAM. 6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 30,895 30,895 COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS. 7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 51,426 51,426 DEFENSE PROGRAM. ..................... BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL..... 588,133 0 588,133 ..................... ..................... APPLIED RESEARCH 8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS 20,065 20,065 TECHNOLOGY. 9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.... 114,790 114,790 11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY 46,875 -5,000 41,875 RESEARCH PROGRAM. ..................... MIT LL reduction...... [-5,000] 13 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 45,000 -15,000 30,000 ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES. ..................... PSC S&T reduction..... [-15,000] 14 0602303E INFORMATION & 413,260 5,000 418,260 COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. ..................... Plan X increase....... [5,000] 15 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING 16,330 16,330 SYSTEMS. 17 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 24,537 24,537 DEFENSE. 18 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 227,065 227,065 DEFENSE PROGRAM. 20 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.. 18,908 0 18,908 ..................... Assuring effective [-2,000] missions. ..................... Automated software [2,000] analysis tools. 21 0602670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 0 5,000 5,000 BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) APPLIED RESEARCH. ..................... HSCB Apl Res extension [5,000] 22 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 225,977 225,977 23 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 166,654 166,654 TECHNOLOGY. 24 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY... 243,469 243,469 25 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS 175,282 175,282 DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES. 26 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 11,107 11,107 INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH. 27 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 29,246 29,246 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ..................... APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL... 1,778,565 -10,000 1,768,565 ..................... ..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 28 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 26,646 26,646 TECHNOLOGY. 29 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED 19,420 19,420 DEVELOPMENT. 30 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 77,792 -17,000 60,792 TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT. ..................... Reduction due to [-17,000] redundancy. 31 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 274,033 274,033 INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATI ON PREVENTION AND DEFEAT. 32 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 309,203 -30,000 279,203 TECHNOLOGY. ..................... Directed energy--DPALS [-5,000] ..................... Advanced Technology-- [-25,000] unsustainable growth. 34 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 19,305 19,305 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 35 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR 7,565 7,565 THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)-- THEATER CAPABILITY. 36 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 40,426 40,426 TECHNOLOGY. 37 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE 149,804 149,804 SYSTEMS. 38 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 172,546 172,546 TECHNOLOGY. 39 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 170,847 170,847 DEFENSE PROGRAM-- ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT. 40 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 9,009 9,009 TECHNOLOGY. 41 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 174,428 -10,000 164,428 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS. ..................... JCTD reduction........ [-10,000] 42 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 20,000 -15,000 5,000 CAPABILITIES. ..................... Net Comm reduction.... [-15,000] 45 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED 19,668 0 19,668 RESEARCH. ..................... Assuring effective [-3,000] missions. ..................... Automated software [3,000] analysis tools. 46 0603670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 0 5,000 5,000 BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) ADVANCED RESEARCH. ..................... HSCB Adv Dev extension [5,000] 47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 34,041 25,000 59,041 MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. ..................... IBIF.................. [25,000] 48 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 61,971 61,971 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 50 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 20,000 20,000 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS. 51 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND 30,256 30,256 DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY. 52 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 72,324 72,324 RESEARCH PROGRAM. 53 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS 82,700 82,700 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT. 54 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM 8,431 8,431 55 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 117,080 117,080 TECHNOLOGIES. 57 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 239,078 239,078 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS. 59 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 259,006 259,006 TECHNOLOGY. 60 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........ 286,364 286,364 61 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 12,116 12,116 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 62 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 19,008 19,008 INSTITUTE. 63 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 78,532 -20,000 58,532 PROJECTS. ..................... Quick & Rapid Reaction [-20,000] Fund reduction. 65 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION.... 12,667 12,667 66 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND 41,370 41,370 SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE. 69 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE 92,508 92,508 & TECHNOLOGY. 70 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 52,001 52,001 CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT. 71 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............. 52,053 3,000 55,053 ..................... Program increase...... [3,000] 72 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 46,809 46,809 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. ..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 3,109,007 -59,000 3,050,007 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ..................... ..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 75 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 63,641 63,641 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P. 76 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH............ 19,152 19,152 77 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................. 70,763 70,763 79 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS 17,230 2,000 19,230 APPLICATION PROGRAM. ..................... Sustain testing effort [2,000] 80 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 71,453 71,453 TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. 81 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 268,990 268,990 TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT. 82 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 1,033,903 1,033,903 MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT. 83 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 196,237 196,237 DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL. 84 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 315,183 30,000 345,183 SENSORS. ..................... Additional homeland [30,000] missile defense radar. 86 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS.... 377,605 377,605 87 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA.... 286,613 286,613 88 0603892C AEGIS BMD................ 937,056 937,056 89 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 44,947 44,947 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM. 90 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6,515 6,515 SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS. 91 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 418,355 418,355 COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATI. 92 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 47,419 47,419 JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT. 93 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE 52,131 52,131 INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC). 94 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH......... 13,864 13,864 95 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 44,478 44,478 (SBX). 96 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 95,782 150,000 245,782 PROGRAMS. ..................... Arrow Weapon System [30,000] Improvements. ..................... Arrow-3 Interceptor... [20,000] ..................... David's Sling short- [100,000] range BMD. 97 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 375,866 375,866 TEST. 98 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 495,257 495,257 TARGETS. 99 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING.... 11,704 11,704 100 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE........ 9,842 9,842 101 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,312 3,312 CORROSION PROGRAM. 102 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 130,000 -30,000 100,000 TECHNOLOGIES. ..................... Adv Innov Tech [-30,000] reduction. 103 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 8,300 8,300 (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT. 104 0604445J WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE... 30,000 30,000 105 0604670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 0 5,000 5,000 BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING. ..................... HSCB Modeling R&E [5,000] extension. 106 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 0 150,000 150,000 PROGRAM. ..................... RIP................... [150,000] 108 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 7,402 7,402 110 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION 7,506 7,506 AND INTEROPERABILITY TEAM. 111 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).. 129,374 129,374 112 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 308,522 308,522 DEVELOPMENT. 115 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 3,169 3,169 TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM. 116 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 946 946 ..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 5,902,517 307,000 6,209,517 DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES TOTAL. ..................... ..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 8,155 8,155 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD. 119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 65,440 65,440 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT. 120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 451,306 451,306 DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD. 122 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES 29,138 29,138 JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO). 123 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL 19,475 19,475 INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS). 124 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS 12,901 12,901 DESTRUCTION DEFEAT CAPABILITIES. 125 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 13,812 13,812 DEVELOPMENT. 126 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL 386 386 SECURITY INITIATIVE. 127 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 3,763 3,763 PROGRAM. 128 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 6,788 6,788 INITIATIVES. 129 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 27,917 27,917 DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION. 130 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND 22,297 22,297 INTEGRATION. 131 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES 51,689 51,689 (DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM. 132 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 6,184 6,184 PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES. 133 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 12,083 12,083 SYSTEM. 134 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 3,302 3,302 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM). ..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND 734,636 0 734,636 DEMONSTRATION TOTAL. ..................... ..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 135 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS 6,393 6,393 REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS). 136 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS 2,479 2,479 ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT. 137 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND 240,213 240,213 EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP). 138 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND 2,127 2,127 EVALUATIONS. 139 0604943D8Z THERMAL VICAR............ 8,287 8,287 140 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 31,000 31,000 TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC). 141 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, 24,379 24,379 SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS. 143 0605117D8Z FOREIGN MATERIEL 54,311 54,311 ACQUISITION AND EXPLOITATION. 144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 47,462 47,462 MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO). 146 0605130D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE 12,134 12,134 TESTING. 147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING...... 44,237 -5,000 39,237 ..................... SE transfer to DT&E... [-5,000] 148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 5,871 5,871 SUPPORT--OSD. 149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,028 5,028 SECURITY. 150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 6,301 6,301 INFORMATION INTEGRATION. 151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 6,504 6,504 (INTELLIGENCE). 152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 92,046 92,046 DEFENSE PROGRAM. 158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 1,868 1,868 RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (S. 159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 8,362 8,362 ANALYSIS. 160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 56,024 -10,000 46,024 INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC). ..................... DTIC reduction........ [-10,000] 161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 6,908 6,908 ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION. 162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 15,451 5,000 20,451 EVALUATION. ..................... DT&E transfer from SE. [5,000] 164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 71,659 71,659 165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,083 4,083 ASSESSMENTS. 167 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS 5,306 5,306 SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI). 168 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 2,097 2,097 SUPPORT. 172 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 8,394 8,394 OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES. 175 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE....... 7,624 7,624 178 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 43,247 43,247 AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2). 179 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA....... 37,712 37,712 180 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS 607 607 WHS. 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 54,914 54,914 ..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL. 913,028 -10,000 903,028 ..................... ..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 182 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY 7,552 7,552 SYSTEM (ESS). 183 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 3,270 3,270 OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA. 184 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 287 287 ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS). 185 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 14,000 14,000 AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT. 186 0607310D8Z OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 1,955 1,955 DEVELOPMENT. 187 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 13,250 13,250 COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G- TSCMIS). 188 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 13,026 13,026 DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT). 190 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND 12,652 12,652 INTEROPERABILITY. 191 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,061 3,061 SYSTEM (PDAS). 192 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY..... 72,726 72,726 194 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 6,524 6,524 INFORMATION SHARING. 201 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 512 512 SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT. 202 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 12,867 12,867 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION. 203 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 36,565 36,565 DCS. 204 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 13,144 13,144 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN). 205 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 1,060 1,060 (PKI). 206 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 33,279 33,279 INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI). 207 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 10,673 10,673 SECURITY PROGRAM. 208 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 181,567 181,567 SECURITY PROGRAM. 210 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND 34,288 34,288 CONTROL SYSTEM. 211 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 7,741 7,741 ORGANIZATION. 212 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE 3,325 3,325 SERVICES (NCES). 213 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY 1,246 1,246 DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO). 214 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM......... 5,147 5,147 216 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR 17,352 17,352 CONTINGENCIES. 220 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 3,658 3,658 221 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 9,752 9,752 PROTECTION (CIP). 225 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS...... 3,210 1,000 4,210 ..................... CRRC extension........ [1,000] 227 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY........... 21,602 21,602 230 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,195 5,195 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 233 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,348 3,348 SURFACE SYSTEMS. 235 0305219BB MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV...... 641 641 238 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE 2,338 2,338 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM. 239 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL 4,372 4,372 INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES. 247 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.. 24,691 24,691 248 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT 4,659 4,659 ACTIVITIES. 249 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS...... 3,533 3,533 250 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................. 1,314 12,000 13,314 ..................... Capability [12,000] Improvements. 254 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS......... 156,561 156,561 256 1160405BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 7,705 7,705 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 257 1160408BB SOF OPERATIONAL 42,620 42,620 ENHANCEMENTS. 261 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS.......... 17,970 17,970 262 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS......... 7,424 7,424 268 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 2,206 2,206 271 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS......... 18,325 1,156 19,481 ..................... CCFLIR--Transfer at [1,156] USSOCOM Request. 274 1160489BB SOF GLOBAL VIDEO 3,304 3,304 SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES. 275 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL 16,021 16,021 ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE. 275A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 3,773,704 3,773,704 ..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM 4,641,222 14,156 4,655,378 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ..................... ..................... UNDISTRIBUTED 276 ..................... UNDISTRIBUTED............ -100,000 -100,000 ..................... DARPA undistributed [-100,000] reduction. ..................... UNDISTRIBUTED TOTAL...... -100,000 -100,000 ..................... ..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 17,667,108 142,156 17,809,264 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW. ..................... ..................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 75,720 75,720 EVALUATION. 2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 48,423 48,423 EVALUATION. 3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST 62,157 62,157 ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES. ..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL. 186,300 0 186,300 ..................... TOTAL, OPERATIONAL TEST & 186,300 0 186,300 EVAL, DEFENSE. ..................... ..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 67,520,236 21,259 67,541,495 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senate Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 87 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 7,000 7,000 VEHICLES. ...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 7,000 7,000 DEMONSTRATION TOTAL. ...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 7,000 7,000 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY. ...................... ...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 224A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 34,426 34,426 ...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 34,426 34,426 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 34,426 34,426 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY. ...................... ...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 251A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 9,000 9,000 ...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 9,000 9,000 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 9,000 9,000 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF. ...................... ...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 275A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 66,208 66,208 ...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM 66,208 66,208 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. ...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 66,208 66,208 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW. ...................... ...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 116,634 116,634 DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Senate Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 888,114 195,900 1,084,014 Readiness funding increase....................... [195,900] 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 72,624 72,624 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 617,402 617,402 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 602,262 602,262 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 1,032,484 1,032,484 060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 1,287,462 15,800 1,303,262 Readiness funding increase....................... [15,800] 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 3,559,656 209,900 3,769,556 Readiness funding increase....................... [209,900] 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 454,477 454,477 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 1,481,156 200,000 1,681,156 Readiness funding increase....................... [200,000] 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 7,278,154 7,278,154 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 2,754,712 2,754,712 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S..................... 425,271 425,271 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 185,064 -5,000 180,064 Unjustified growth............................... [-5,000] 170 COMBATANT COMMANDERS ANCILLARY MISSIONS............. 463,270 463,270 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 21,102,108 616,600 21,718,708 MOBILIZATION 180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.................................. 360,240 360,240 190 ARMY PREPOSITIONING STOCKS.......................... 192,105 192,105 200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS............................. 7,101 7,101 MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 559,446 0 559,446 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 210 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 115,992 115,992 220 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 52,323 52,323 230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING........................... 43,589 43,589 240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.............. 453,745 453,745 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 1,034,495 1,034,495 260 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 1,016,876 1,016,876 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 186,565 186,565 280 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 652,514 652,514 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 485,500 485,500 300 EXAMINING........................................... 170,912 170,912 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 251,523 251,523 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 184,422 184,422 330 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 181,105 181,105 TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 4,829,561 0 4,829,561 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 690,089 690,089 360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 774,120 774,120 370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 651,765 651,765 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 453,051 453,051 390 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 487,737 487,737 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 1,563,115 1,563,115 410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 326,853 326,853 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 234,364 234,364 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT............................... 1,212,091 1,212,091 440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.............................. 243,540 243,540 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 241,101 241,101 460 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 226,291 226,291 470 SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATIONS.......................... 426,651 426,651 480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS...................... 27,248 27,248 480A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,023,946 1,023,946 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL.................... 8,581,962 0 8,581,962 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................ 35,073,077 616,600 35,689,677 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 1,621 1,621 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 24,429 24,429 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 657,099 657,099 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 122,485 122,485 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 584,058 584,058 060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 79,380 79,380 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 471,616 471,616 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 74,243 74,243 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 70,894 70,894 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 569,801 569,801 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 294,145 36,400 330,545 Readiness funding increase....................... [36,400] 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S..................... 51,853 51,853 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 3,001,624 36,400 3,038,024 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 10,735 10,735 140 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 24,197 24,197 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 10,304 10,304 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 10,319 10,319 170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 37,857 37,857 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 93,412 0 93,412 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............ 3,095,036 36,400 3,131,436 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 800,880 800,880 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 178,650 178,650 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 771,503 771,503 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 98,699 98,699 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 38,779 38,779 060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 922,503 922,503 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 761,056 761,056 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 62,971 62,971 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 233,105 233,105 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 1,019,059 1,019,059 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 712,139 74,200 786,339 Readiness funding increase....................... [74,200] 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S..................... 1,013,715 1,013,715 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 6,613,059 74,200 6,687,259 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 10,812 10,812 140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 1,551 1,551 150 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 78,284 78,284 160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 46,995 46,995 170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 6,390 6,390 180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 297,105 297,105 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 441,137 0 441,137 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................ 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 4,952,522 32,500 4,985,022 Readiness funding increase....................... [32,500] 020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.................................. 1,826,404 11,200 1,837,604 Readiness funding increase....................... [11,200] 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 38,639 38,639 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 90,030 90,030 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 362,700 362,700 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 915,881 915,881 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 35,838 608 36,446 Readiness funding increase....................... [608] 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 379,914 379,914 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 3,884,836 99,500 3,984,336 Readiness funding increase....................... [99,500] 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 734,852 61,400 796,252 Readiness funding increase....................... [61,400] 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 5,191,511 5,700 5,197,211 Readiness funding increase....................... [5,700] 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT....................... 1,351,274 126,200 1,477,474 Readiness funding increase....................... [126,200] 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 701,316 701,316 140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.................................. 97,710 97,710 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE...................... 172,330 172,330 160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 454,682 454,682 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 328,406 328,406 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 946,429 946,429 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............................... 142,249 142,249 200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................ 2,603 660 3,263 Readiness funding increase....................... [660] 210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 102,970 102,970 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 199,128 -3,000 196,128 Classified program decrease...................... [-3,000] 230 CRUISE MISSILE...................................... 92,671 92,671 240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE............................. 1,193,188 1,193,188 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................. 105,985 105,985 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 532,627 532,627 270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 304,160 304,160 280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 1,011,528 1,011,528 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 1,996,821 100,000 2,096,821 Readiness funding increase....................... [100,000] 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 4,460,918 4,460,918 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 32,610,122 434,768 33,044,890 MOBILIZATION 310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE....................... 331,576 331,576 320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 6,638 6,638 330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS...................... 222,752 222,752 340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 73,310 73,310 350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS................................ 2,675 2,675 360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 23,794 23,794 MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 660,745 0 660,745 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 370 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 148,516 148,516 380 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 9,384 9,384 390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..................... 139,876 139,876 400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 630,069 630,069 410 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 9,294 9,294 420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 169,082 169,082 430 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 164,368 164,368 440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 241,733 241,733 450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 139,815 139,815 460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 94,632 94,632 470 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 51,373 51,373 TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 1,798,142 0 1,798,142 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 480 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 886,088 886,088 490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.................................. 13,131 13,131 500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 115,742 115,742 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 382,150 382,150 520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 268,403 268,403 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 317,293 317,293 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 207,128 207,128 570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN.................... 295,855 295,855 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 1,140,484 1,140,484 590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT............. 52,873 52,873 600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.............................. 27,587 27,587 610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS................ 75,728 75,728 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE......................... 543,026 543,026 680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES............. 4,965 4,965 680A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 545,775 545,775 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 4,876,228 0 4,876,228 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................ 39,945,237 434,768 40,380,005 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 837,012 837,012 020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 894,555 894,555 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 223,337 56,000 279,337 Readiness funding increase....................... [56,000] 040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING............................. 97,878 97,878 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............ 774,619 774,619 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 2,166,661 2,166,661 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 4,994,062 56,000 5,050,062 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 070 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 17,693 17,693 080 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 896 896 090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 100,806 100,806 100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 46,928 46,928 110 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 356,426 356,426 120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 179,747 179,747 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 52,255 52,255 140 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 23,138 23,138 TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 777,889 0 777,889 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 43,816 43,816 160 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 305,107 305,107 180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 87,500 87,500 180A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 46,276 46,276 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 482,699 0 482,699 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS........ 6,254,650 56,000 6,310,650 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 586,620 1,900 588,520 Readiness funding increase....................... [1,900] 020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 7,008 7,008 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 100,657 8,900 109,557 Readiness funding increase....................... [8,900] 050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 305 305 060 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 3,927 3,927 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 75,933 75,933 080 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 601 601 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 44,364 44,364 100 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 15,477 15,477 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 115,608 115,608 120 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 1,967 1,967 130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 43,726 43,726 140 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 69,011 69,011 150 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 109,604 109,604 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 1,174,808 10,800 1,185,608 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 160 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 2,905 2,905 170 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 14,425 14,425 180 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 2,485 2,485 190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 3,129 3,129 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 22,944 0 22,944 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............ 1,197,752 10,800 1,208,552 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RES OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 96,244 96,244 020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 17,581 17,581 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 32,438 32,438 040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 95,259 95,259 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 241,522 0 241,522 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 894 894 060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 11,743 11,743 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 9,158 9,158 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 21,795 0 21,795 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RES.............. 263,317 0 263,317 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 3,295,814 220,000 3,515,814 Readiness funding increase....................... [220,000] 020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,875,095 1,875,095 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 1,559,109 30,000 1,589,109 Increase for ranges.............................. [30,000] 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 5,956,304 190,000 6,146,304 Readiness funding increase....................... [190,000] 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 1,834,424 75,000 1,909,424 Readiness funding increase....................... [75,000] 060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 2,779,811 2,779,811 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 913,841 913,841 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 916,837 916,837 100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES......... 720,349 720,349 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 305,275 305,275 120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 433,658 433,658 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 1,146,016 -22,400 1,123,616 Classified program decrease...................... [-22,400] 140 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 231,830 231,830 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 21,968,363 492,600 22,460,963 MOBILIZATION 150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 2,015,902 2,015,902 160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 147,216 147,216 170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,556,232 1,556,232 180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 167,402 167,402 190 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 707,040 707,040 MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 4,593,792 0 4,593,792 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 200 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 102,334 102,334 210 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 17,733 17,733 220 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).............. 94,600 94,600 230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 217,011 217,011 240 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 800,327 800,327 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 399,364 399,364 260 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 792,275 792,275 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 248,958 248,958 280 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 106,741 106,741 290 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 319,331 20,000 339,331 Readiness funding increase....................... [20,000] 300 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 122,736 122,736 310 EXAMINING........................................... 3,679 3,679 320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 137,255 137,255 330 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 176,153 176,153 340 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 67,018 67,018 TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 3,605,515 20,000 3,625,515 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 1,103,684 1,103,684 360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 919,923 919,923 370 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 56,601 56,601 380 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 281,061 281,061 390 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 1,203,305 1,203,305 400 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 593,865 593,865 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 574,609 574,609 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 1,028,600 1,028,600 430 CIVIL AIR PATROL.................................... 24,720 24,720 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 89,008 89,008 460A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,227,796 1,227,796 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 7,103,172 0 7,103,172 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE........... 37,270,842 512,600 37,783,442 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,857,951 1,857,951 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 224,462 224,462 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 521,182 521,182 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 89,704 8,700 98,404 Readiness funding increase....................... [8,700] 050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 360,836 360,836 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 3,054,135 8,700 3,062,835 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 64,362 64,362 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 15,056 15,056 080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).............. 23,617 23,617 090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)................ 6,618 6,618 100 AUDIOVISUAL......................................... 819 819 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL..... 110,472 0 110,472 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.......... 3,164,607 8,700 3,173,307 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS................................. 3,371,871 3,371,871 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 720,305 720,305 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,514,870 1,514,870 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 296,953 28,200 325,153 Readiness funding increase....................... [28,200] 050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 597,303 597,303 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 6,501,302 28,200 6,529,502 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 32,117 32,117 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 32,585 32,585 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL.... 64,702 0 64,702 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG................. 6,566,004 28,200 6,594,204 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 472,239 472,239 020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND.......................... 5,261,463 -21,800 5,239,663 USSOCOM RSCC..................................... [-14,700] USSOCOM NCR Contractor Support................... [-7,100] OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 5,733,702 -21,800 5,711,902 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY...................... 157,397 157,397 050 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY......................... 84,899 84,899 TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 242,296 0 242,296 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 060 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS............................. 144,443 21,699 166,142 Starbase......................................... [21,699] 080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 612,207 612,207 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 1,378,606 1,378,606 110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY.................... 763,091 763,091 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 1,326,243 1,326,243 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 29,933 29,933 150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY............................ 462,545 462,545 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 222,979 222,979 170 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE.............................. 21,594 21,594 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 788,389 -19,000 769,389 Regional centers for security centers-- [-12,000] undistributed decrease........................... Combating terrorism fellowship program........... [-7,000] 190 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE............................ 546,603 546,603 210 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.......... 35,151 35,151 220 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY..................... 438,033 438,033 240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 2,713,756 30,000 2,743,756 Supplemental Impact Aid.......................... [25,000] Disability Impact Aid............................ [5,000] 250 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.............................. 256,201 256,201 270 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT....................... 371,615 -273,300 98,315 Program decrease................................. [-273,300] 280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 2,010,176 -7,000 2,003,176 OUSD(P) program decrease......................... [-7,000] 290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 616,572 616,572 290A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 14,283,558 25,000 14,308,558 Reduction to Operation Observant Compass......... [-15,000] Increase to Operation Observant Compass.......... [40,000] ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL..... 27,021,695 -222,601 26,799,094 TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE...... 32,997,693 -244,401 32,753,292 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE... 13,606 13,606 010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID....... 109,500 109,500 010 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT................ 528,455 528,455 010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD................................ 256,031 256,031 050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY..................... 298,815 298,815 070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY..................... 316,103 316,103 090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................ 439,820 439,820 110 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.................. 10,757 10,757 130 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES....... 237,443 237,443 150 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND....... 5,000 5,000 TOTAL, MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS................. 2,215,530 2,215,530 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...................... 175,097,941 1,533,867 176,631,808 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Senate Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 217,571 217,571 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 8,266 8,266 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 56,626 56,626 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 4,209,942 4,209,942 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 950,567 -7,000 943,567 NSHQ--Transfer at DoD Request.................... [-7,000] 060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 474,288 474,288 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,349,152 136,300 1,485,452 BuckEye terrain data increase.................... [56,300] Transfer from JIEDDO--Train the Force............ [80,000] 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 655,000 655,000 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 301,563 301,563 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 706,214 706,214 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES............................... 11,519,498 11,519,498 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM............... 60,000 60,000 160 RESET............................................... 2,240,358 2,240,358 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 22,749,045 129,300 22,878,345 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 4,601,356 4,601,356 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 17,418 17,418 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 110,000 110,000 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 94,820 94,820 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT............................... 54,000 54,000 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 250,000 250,000 480A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,402,994 1,402,994 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL.................... 6,530,588 0 6,530,588 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................ 29,279,633 129,300 29,408,933 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 6,995 6,995 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 2,332 2,332 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 608 608 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 33,000 33,000 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 42,935 0 42,935 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............ 42,935 0 42,935 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 29,314 29,314 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 1,494 1,494 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 15,343 15,343 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 1,549 1,549 060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 64,504 64,504 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 31,512 31,512 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 42,179 42,179 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S..................... 11,996 11,996 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 240,826 0 240,826 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 1,480 1,480 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 1,480 0 1,480 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................ 199,371 0 199,371 AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 010 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 2,735,603 2,735,603 020 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 278,650 278,650 030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 2,180,382 2,180,382 040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 626,550 626,550 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE TOTAL........................... 5,821,185 0 5,821,185 MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 060 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 1,214,995 1,214,995 080 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 54,696 54,696 090 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 626,119 626,119 MINISTRY OF INTERIOR TOTAL.......................... 1,895,810 0 1,895,810 DETAINEE OPS 110 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 7,225 7,225 140 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 2,500 2,500 DETAINEE OPS TOTAL.................................. 9,725 0 9,725 TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND............. 7,726,720 0 7,726,720 AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 010 POWER............................................... 279,000 -29,000 250,000 Unjustified expenditure.......................... [-29,000] AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND TOTAL............... 279,000 0 250,000 TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND TOTAL........ 279,000 -29,000 250,000 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 845,169 845,169 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 600 600 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 17,489 17,489 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 78,491 78,491 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 162,420 162,420 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 2,700 2,700 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 50,130 50,130 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 949,539 949,539 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 20,226 20,226 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 1,679,660 1,679,660 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 37,760 37,760 160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 25,351 25,351 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 20,045 20,045 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 1,212,296 1,212,296 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............................... 10,203 10,203 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................. 127,972 127,972 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 221,427 221,427 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 13,386 13,386 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 110,940 110,940 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 5,585,804 0 5,585,804 MOBILIZATION 340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 18,460 18,460 360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 227,033 227,033 MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 245,493 0 245,493 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 50,269 50,269 430 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 5,400 5,400 TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 55,669 0 55,669 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 480 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 2,418 2,418 490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.................................. 516 516 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 5,107 5,107 520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 1,411 1,411 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 2,545 2,545 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 153,427 153,427 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 8,570 8,570 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE......................... 1,425 1,425 680A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 5,608 5,608 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 181,027 0 181,027 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................ 6,067,993 0 6,067,993 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 992,190 992,190 020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 559,574 559,574 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 570,000 570,000 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 69,726 69,726 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 2,191,490 0 2,191,490 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 110 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 108,270 26,000 134,270 Transfer from JIEDDO--Train the Force............ [26,000] TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 108,270 26,000 134,270 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL 150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 365,555 365,555 160 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 3,675 3,675 180A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 825 825 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 370,055 0 370,055 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS........ 2,669,815 26,000 2,695,815 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 17,196 17,196 020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 200 200 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 6,000 6,000 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 12,304 12,304 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 6,790 6,790 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 13,210 13,210 TOTAL, OPERATING FORCES............................. 55,700 0 55,700 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............ 55,700 0 55,700 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 11,124 11,124 040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 1,410 1,410 TOTAL, OPERATING FORCES............................. 12,534 0 12,534 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.......... 12,534 0 12,534 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,712,393 1,712,393 020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 836,104 836,104 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 14,118 14,118 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,373,480 1,373,480 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 122,712 122,712 060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 1,520,333 1,520,333 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 31,582 31,582 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 147,524 147,524 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 857 857 120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 8,353 8,353 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 50,495 50,495 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 5,886,185 0 5,886,185 MOBILIZATION 150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 3,091,133 3,091,133 160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 47,897 47,897 170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 387,179 387,179 180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 7,043 7,043 190 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 68,382 68,382 MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 3,601,634 0 3,601,634 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 200 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 100 100 210 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 478 478 240 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 19,256 19,256 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 12,845 12,845 260 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 731 731 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 607 607 280 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 720 720 320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 152 152 TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 34,889 0 34,889 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 86,273 86,273 360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 2,511 2,511 390 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 19,887 19,887 400 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 3,493 3,493 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 152,086 152,086 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 269,825 269,825 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 117 117 460A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 16,558 16,558 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 550,750 0 550,750 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE.................. 10,005,224 0 10,005,224 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 26,599 26,599 050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 6,250 6,250 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 32,849 0 32,849 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.......... 32,849 0 32,849 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 22,200 22,200 OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 22,200 0 22,200 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG................. 22,200 0 22,200 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND.......................... 2,222,868 7,000 2,229,868 NSHQ--Transfer at DoD Request.................... [7,000] OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 2,277,917 7,000 2,284,917 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 27,781 27,781 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 45,746 45,746 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 76,348 76,348 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 99,538 99,538 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 9,620 9,620 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 1,950,000 1,950,000 240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 100,100 100,100 280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 38,227 38,227 290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 2,784 2,784 290A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,862,066 1,862,066 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL..... 4,212,210 0 4,212,210 TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE...... 6,435,078 7,000 6,442,078 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...................... 62,829,052 133,300 62,962,352 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 130,399,881 -270,000 130,129,881 Permanent Change of Station Travel............... [-150,000] Undistributed reduction consistent with pace of [-120,000] drawdown......................................... SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS......... 130,399,881 -270,000 130,129,881 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 6,676,750 6,676,750 SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND 6,676,750 0 6,676,750 CONTRIBUTIONS...................................... TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL........................... 137,076,631 -270,000 136,806,631 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 9,689,307 9,689,307 SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS......... 9,689,307 0 9,689,307 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 164,033 164,033 SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND 164,033 0 164,033 CONTRIBUTIONS...................................... TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL........................... 9,853,340 0 9,853,340 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Senate Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS................ 25,158 25,158 TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............... 25,158 0 25,158 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 030 FUEL COSTS...................................... 61,731 61,731 TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......... 61,731 0 61,731 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 46,428 46,428 TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 46,428 0 46,428 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA...................... 1,412,510 1,412,510 TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............... 1,412,510 0 1,412,510 TOTAL, ALL WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS................ 1,545,827 0 1,545,827 NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND 020 MPF MLP......................................... 134,917 -112,200 22,717 Navy requested adjustment.................... [-112,200] 030 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING.................... 43,404 43,404 050 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE.................... 116,784 116,784 060 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS.................... 60,703 60,703 070 TAH MAINTENANCE................................. 19,809 19,809 080 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT........................ 56,058 56,058 090 READY RESERVE FORCE............................. 299,025 299,025 TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND............ 730,700 -112,200 618,500 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM DHP O&M 010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 8,880,738 8,880,738 020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 15,842,732 15,842,732 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 2,505,640 2,505,640 040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.......................... 1,450,619 1,450,619 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES........................... 368,248 368,248 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 733,097 733,097 070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS.................. 1,872,660 1,872,660 070A UNDISTRIBUTED, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.......... 0 218,000 218,000 Restore Tricare savings...................... [218,000] SUBTOTAL, DHP O&M........................... 31,653,734 218,000 31,871,734 DHP RDT&E 080 R&D RESEARCH.................................... 9,162 9,162 090 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT...................... 47,977 47,977 100 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT........................ 291,156 291,156 110 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION.................... 132,430 132,430 120 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT..................... 161,674 161,674 130 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT...................... 72,568 72,568 140 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT.................... 14,646 14,646 SUBTOTAL, DHP RDT&E......................... 729,613 0 729,613 DHP PROCUREMENT 170 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING......................... 89,404 89,404 180 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION................ 377,577 377,577 190 PROC IEHR....................................... 204,200 204,200 SUBTOTAL, DHP PROCUREMENT................... 671,181 0 671,181 TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................... 33,054,528 218,000 33,272,528 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION 01 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE......................... 451,572 451,572 02 RDT&E........................................... 604,183 604,183 03 PROCUREMENT..................................... 1,368 1,368 TOTAL, CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION...... 1,057,123 0 1,057,123 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF 010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES... 815,965 -5,840 810,125 Joint Interagency Task Force--West (PC3309).. [-3,000] U.S. European Comman Counternarcotics [-1,640] Hedquaters Support (PC2346).................. U.S. Special Operations Forces Support to [-1,200] U.S. European Command (PC6505)............... 030 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM................... 122,580 122,580 TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 938,545 -5,840 932,705 DEF............................................ OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 311,131 35,900 347,031 Program increase............................. [35,900] 030 PROCUREMENT..................................... 1,000 1,000 TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.......... 312,131 35,900 348,031 TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................... 37,638,854 135,860 37,774,714 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 2014 Senate Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS................ 44,732 44,732 TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............... 44,732 0 44,732 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 030 FUEL COSTS...................................... 88,500 88,500 TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......... 88,500 0 88,500 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 131,678 131,678 TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 131,678 0 131,678 TOTAL, ALL WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS................ 264,910 0 264,910 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM DHP O&M 010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 375,958 375,958 020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 382,560 382,560 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 132,749 132,749 040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.......................... 2,238 2,238 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES........................... 460 460 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 10,236 10,236 SUBTOTAL, DHP O&M........................... 904,201 0 904,201 TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................... 904,201 0 904,201 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF 010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES... 376,305 376,305 TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 376,305 0 376,305 DEF............................................ OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 10,766 10,766 TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.......... 10,766 0 10,766 TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................... 1,556,182 0 1,556,182 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget Senate Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request Senate Change Authorized -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTIVE SERVICIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY ALASKA FT WAINWRIGHT Aviation Battalion Complex. 45,000 45,000 ARMY ALASKA FT WAINWRIGHT Aviation Storage Hangar.... 58,000 58,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Fire Station............... 12,000 12,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Headquarters Building...... 33,000 33,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 73,000 73,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 66,000 66,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Runway..................... 12,000 12,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Simulator Building......... 12,200 12,200 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Central Energy Plant....... 34,000 34,000 ARMY FLORIDA EGLIN AFB Automated Sniper Field Fire 4,700 4,700 Range. ARMY GA FT GORDON Adv Individual Training 61,000 61,000 Barracks Cplx, Ph2. ARMY HAWAII FT SHAFTER Command and Control 75,000 75,000 Facility--Admin. ARMY KANSAS FT LEAVENWORTH Simulations Center......... 17,000 17,000 ARMY KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Battlefield Weather Support 4,800 4,800 Facility. ARMY MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GND Operations and Maintenance 21,000 21,000 Facilities. ARMY MARYLAND FT DETRICK Hazardous Material Storage 4,600 4,600 Building. ARMY MARYLAND FT DETRICK Entry Control Point........ 2,500 2,500 ARMY MISSOURI FT LEONARD WOOD Adv Individual Training 86,000 86,000 Barracks Cplx, Ph1. ARMY MISSOURI FT LEONARD WOOD Simulator Building......... 4,700 4,700 ARMY NEW YORK U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY Cadet Barracks, Incr 2..... 42,000 42,000 ARMY NC FT BRAGG Command and Control 5,900 5,900 Facility. ARMY TEXAS FT BLISS Control Tower.............. 10,800 10,800 ARMY TEXAS FT BLISS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 36,000 36,000 Complex. ARMY VIRGINIA JT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS Adv Individual Training 50,000 50,000 Barracks Cplx, Ph3. ARMY WASHINGTON YAKIMA Automated Multipurpose 9,100 9,100 Machine Gun Range. ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Airfield Operations Complex 37,000 37,000 ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 79,000 79,000 ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Aviation Battalion Complex. 28,000 28,000 ARMY KWAJALEIN KWAJALEIN ATOLL Pier....................... 63,000 63,000 ARMY WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION Company Operations Complex. 33,000 33,000 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Minor Construction FY14.... 25,000 25,000 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design FY14... 41,575 41,575 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Host Nation Support FY14... 33,000 33,000 SUBTOTAL, ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 1,119,875 0 1,119,875 ....................... ....................... NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION NAVY CALIFORNIA BARSTOW Engine Dynamometer Facility 14,998 14,998 NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CA Ammunition Supply Point 13,124 13,124 Upgrade. NAVY CALIFORNIA POINT MUGU Aircraft Engine Test Pads.. 7,198 7,198 NAVY CALIFORNIA POINT MUGU BAMS Consolidated 17,469 17,469 Maintenance Hangar. NAVY CALIFORNIA PORT HUENEME Unaccompanied Housing 33,600 33,600 Conversion. NAVY CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO Steam Plant 34,331 34,331 Decentralization. NAVY CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA Camp Wilson Infrastructure 33,437 33,437 Upgrades. NAVY CALIFORNIA CORONADO H-60 Trainer Facility...... 8,910 8,910 NAVY FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE P-8A Training & Parking 20,752 20,752 Apron Expansion. NAVY FLORIDA KEY WEST Aircraft Crash/Rescue & 14,001 14,001 Fire Headquarters. NAVY FLORIDA MAYPORT LCS Logistics Support 16,093 16,093 Facility. NAVY GA ALBANY Weapons Storage and 15,600 15,600 Inspection Facility. NAVY GA ALBANY CERS Dispatch Facility..... 1,010 1,010 NAVY GA SAVANNAH Townsend Bombing Range Land 61,717 61,717 Acq--Phase 1. NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Armory Addition and 12,952 12,952 Renovation. NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY 3rd Radio Bn Maintenance/ 25,336 25,336 Operations Complex. NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 31,820 31,820 Upgrades. NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aircraft Maintenance 16,968 16,968 Expansion. NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aviation Simulator 17,724 17,724 Modernization/Addition. NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV-22 Parking Apron and 74,665 74,665 Infrastructure. NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV-22 Hangar............... 57,517 57,517 NAVY HAWAII PEARL CITY Water Transmission Line.... 30,100 30,100 NAVY HAWAII PEARL HARBOR Drydock Waterfront Facility 22,721 22,721 NAVY HAWAII PEARL HARBOR Submarine Production 35,277 35,277 Support Facility. NAVY ILLINOIS GREAT LAKES Unaccompanied Housing...... 35,851 35,851 NAVY MAINE BANGOR NCTAMS VLF Commercial Power 13,800 13,800 Connection. NAVY MAINE KITTERY Structural Shops 11,522 11,522 Consolidation. NAVY MARYLAND FT MEADE MARFORCYBERCOM HQ-OPS 83,988 83,988 Building. NAVY NEVADA FALLON Wastewater Treatment Plant. 11,334 11,334 NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Operations Training Complex 22,515 22,515 NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Landfill--Phase 4.......... 20,795 20,795 NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization-- 2,620 2,620 Camp Johnson. NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization-- 13,390 13,390 Hadnot Point. NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization--BEQ 18,679 18,679 Nodes. NAVY NC NEW RIVER Corrosion Control Hangar... 12,547 12,547 NAVY NC NEW RIVER CH-53K Maintenance Training 13,218 13,218 Facility. NAVY NC NEW RIVER Regional Communication 20,098 20,098 Station. NAVY OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB TACAMO E-6B Hangar......... 14,144 14,144 NAVY RHODE ISLAND NEWPORT Hewitt Hall Research Center 12,422 12,422 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON Nuclear Power Operational 73,932 73,932 Training Facility. NAVY VIRGINIA DAM NECK Aerial Target Operation 10,587 10,587 Consolidation. NAVY VIRGINIA NORFOLK Pier 11 Power Upgrades for 3,380 3,380 CVN-78. NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO ATC Transmitter/Receiver 3,630 3,630 Relocation. NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Fuller Road Improvements... 9,013 9,013 NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Academic Instruction 25,731 25,731 Facility TECOM Schools. NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Small Arms Ranges.......... 18,700 18,700 NAVY WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND EA-18G Facility 32,482 32,482 Improvements. NAVY WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND P-8A Hangar and Training 85,167 85,167 Facilities. NAVY WASHINGTON BREMERTON Integrated Water Treatment 18,189 18,189 Sys Dry Docks 3&4. NAVY WASHINGTON KITSAP Explosives Handling Wharf 24,880 24,880 #2 (INC). NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS BAMS Forward Operational & 61,702 61,702 Maintenance Hangar. NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Aircraft Maintenance 85,673 -85,673 0 Hangar--North Ramp. NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Modular Storage Magazines.. 63,382 63,382 NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS X-Ray Wharf Improvements... 53,420 53,420 NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Emergent Repair Facility 35,860 35,860 Expansion. NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Dehumidified Supply Storage 17,170 17,170 Facility. NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Sierra Wharf Improvements.. 1,170 1,170 NAVY JAPAN YOKOSUKA Communication System 7,568 7,568 Upgrade. NAVY JAPAN CAMP BUTLER Airfield Security Upgrades. 5,820 5,820 NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Armory..................... 6,420 6,420 NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Unaccompanied Housing...... 22,580 22,580 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 19,740 19,740 Construction. NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE MCON Design Funds.......... 89,830 89,830 SUBTOTAL, NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 1,700,269 -85,673 1,614,596 ....................... ....................... AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AF ARIZONA LUKE AFB F-35 Field Training 5,500 5,500 Detachment. AF ARIZONA LUKE AFB F-35 Sq Ops/Aircraft 21,400 21,400 Maintenance Unit #3. AF CALIFORNIA BEALE AFB Distributed Common Ground 62,000 62,000 Station Ops Bldg. AF FLORIDA TYNDALL AFB F-22 Munitions Storage 9,100 9,100 Complex. AF HAWAII JT BASE PEARL HARBOR- C-17 Modernize Hgr 35, 4,800 4,800 HICKAM Docks 1&2. AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A 1-Bay Maintenance 32,000 32,000 Hangar (Air Force Requested Change). AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A 2-Bay Corrosion/Fuel 82,000 82,000 Hangar (Air Force Requested Change). AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A 3-Bay General 80,000 80,000 Purpose Maintenance Hangar (Air Force Requested Change). AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A ADAL Flight 2,150 2,150 Simulator Buildings (Air Force Requested Change). AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A Alter Aircraft 2,200 2,200 Parking Apron (Air Force Requested Change). AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A Alter Apron Fuels 12,800 12,800 Distribution Systems (Air Force Requested Change). AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A Alter Miscellaneous 970 970 Facilities (Air Force Requested Change). AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A Pipeline Student 7,000 7,000 Dormitory (Air Force Requested Change). AF KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY 19th Air Support Operations 8,000 8,000 Sqdrn Expansion. AF MARYLAND FT MEADE CYBERCOM Joint Operations 85,000 85,000 Center, Increment 1. AF MARYLAND JT BASE ANDREWS Helicopter Operations 30,000 30,000 Facility. AF MISSOURI WHITEMAN AFB WSA MOP Igloos and Assembly 5,900 5,900 Facility. AF NEBRASKA OFFUTT AFB USSTRATCOM Replacement 136,000 136,000 Facility, Incr 3. AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB Dormitory (240 RM)......... 35,000 35,000 AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB F-35 Alt Mission Equip 5,000 5,000 (AME) Storage. AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB F-35 Parts Store........... 9,100 9,100 AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB F-35 Fuel Cell Hangar...... 9,400 9,400 AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB Add RPA Weapons School 20,000 20,000 Facility. AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Airmen and Family Readiness 5,500 5,500 Center. AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Satellite Dining Facility.. 6,600 6,600 AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Dormitory (144 RM)......... 22,000 22,000 AF NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB F-16 Aircraft Covered 2,250 2,250 Washrack and Pad. AF NEW MEXICO KIRTLAND AFB Nuclear Systems Wing & 30,500 30,500 Sustainment Center (Ph. AF NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB B-52 ADAL Aircraft 15,530 15,530 Maintenance Unit. AF NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB B-52 Munitions Storage 8,300 8,300 Igloos. AF OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB KC-46A Land Acquisition.... 8,600 8,600 AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A FTU ADAL Fuel 3,350 3,350 Systems Maintenance Dock For Hangar (Air Force Requested Change). AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A FTU ADAL Squadron 7,400 7,400 Operations/AMU (Air Force Requested Change). AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A FTU FTC Simulator 12,600 12,600 Facility (Air Force Requested Change). AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A FTU Fuselage Trainer 6,300 6,300 (Air Force Requested Change). AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A Renovate Facility 1,200 1,200 for 97 OG and 97 MXTS (Air Force Requested Change). AF TEXAS FT BLISS F-16 BAK 12/14 Aircraft 3,350 3,350 Arresting System. AF UTAH HILL AFB Fire Crash Rescue Station.. 18,500 18,500 AF UTAH HILL AFB F-35 Aircraft Mx Unit 13,500 13,500 Hangar 45E Ops #1. AF VIRGINIA JT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS 4-Bay Conventional 4,800 4,800 Munitions Inspection Bldg. AF GREENLAND THULE AB Thule Consolidation, Phase 43,904 43,904 2. AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR--Tanker GP Mx Hangar/ 132,600 -132,600 0 AMU/Sqd Ops. AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR--Fuel Sys Hardened 20,000 -20,000 0 Bldgs. AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR--Strike Tactical 10,530 10,530 Missile Mxs Facility. AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PRTC RED HORSE Airfield 8,500 8,500 Operations Facility. AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PRTC SF Fire Rescue & 4,600 4,600 Emergency Mgt. AF MARIANA ISLANDS SAIPAN PAR--Maintenance Facility.. 2,800 2,800 AF MARIANA ISLANDS SAIPAN PAR--Airport POL/Bulk 18,500 18,500 Storage AST. AF MARIANA ISLANDS SAIPAN PAR--Hazardous Cargo Pad... 8,000 8,000 AF UNITED KINGDOM ROYAL AF LAKENHEATH Guardian Angel Operations 22,047 -22,047 0 Facility. AF UNITED KINGDOM CROUGHTON RAF Main Gate Complex.......... 12,000 -12,000 0 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE KC-46A MOB #1 Facility 192,700 -192,700 0 Projects. ....................... ....................... Air Force Requested Change. [-192,700] AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE KC-46A FTU Facility 63,000 -63,000 0 Projects. ....................... ....................... Air Force Requested Change. [-63,000] AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 20,448 20,448 Construction. AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning & Design.......... 11,314 11,314 SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 1,156,573 -192,377 964,196 ....................... ....................... DEFENSE-WIDE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION DEFW BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO Headquarters Facility. 38,513 38,513 DEFW BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO Headquarters Fit-Out.. 29,100 29,100 DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Energy Conservation 150,000 150,000 Investment PRGM. DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Contingency Construction... 10,000 10,000 DISA HAWAII FORD ISLAND DISA Pacific Facility 2,615 2,615 Upgrades. DLA CALIFORNIA DEFENSE DIST DEPOT- General Purpose Warehouse.. 37,554 37,554 TRACY DLA CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 6,000 6,000 DLA FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 7,500 7,500 DLA FLORIDA PANAMA CITY Replace Ground Vehicle 2,600 2,600 Fueling Facility. DLA FLORIDA TYNDALL AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 9,500 9,500 DLA GA MOODY AFB Replace Ground Vehicle 3,800 3,800 Fueling Facility. DLA GA HUNTER ARMY AIRFIELD Replace Fuel Island........ 13,500 13,500 DLA HAWAII JT BASE PEARL HARBOR- Alter Warehouse Space...... 2,800 2,800 HICKAM DLA NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Replace Fuel Distribution 10,000 10,000 LAKEHURST Components. DLA NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System 21,400 21,400 DLA NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 6,400 6,400 DLA OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB Replace Refueler Parking... 2,100 2,100 DLA OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB Replace Fuel Distribution 36,000 36,000 Facilities. DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW Upgrade Public Safety 5,900 5,900 CUMBERLAND Facility. DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW Upgrade Hazardous Material 3,100 3,100 CUMBERLAND Warehouse. DLA TENNESSEE ARNOLD AF BASE Replace Ground Vehicle 2,200 2,200 Fueling Facility. DLA VIRGINIA DEF DIST DEPOT RICHMOND Operations Center Phase 1.. 87,000 87,000 DLA WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND Replace Fuel Pier 10,000 10,000 Breakwater. DLA JAPAN ATSUGI Replace Ground Vehicle 4,100 4,100 Fueling Facility. DLA JAPAN IWAKUNI Construct Hydrant Fuel 34,000 34,000 System. DLA JAPAN YOKOSUKA Upgrade Fuel Pumps......... 10,600 10,600 DLA UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL Replace Fuel Storage....... 17,732 -17,732 0 DODEA GA FT BENNING Faith Middle School 6,031 6,031 Addition. DODEA GA FT BENNING White Elemtary School 37,304 37,304 Replacement. DODEA GA FT STEWART, GA Diamond Elementary School 44,504 44,504 Replacement. DODEA KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Marshall Elementary School 38,591 38,591 Replacement. DODEA KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Fort Campbell High School 59,278 59,278 Replacement. DODEA KENTUCKY FT KNOX Consolidate/Replace Van 38,023 38,023 Voorhis-Mudge ES. DODEA MASSACHUSETTS HANSCOM AFB Hanscom Primary School 36,213 36,213 Replacement. DODEA NC FT BRAGG Consolidate/Replace Pope 37,032 37,032 Holbrook Elementary. DODEA SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFT Bolden Elementary/Middle 41,324 41,324 School Replacement. DODEA VIRGINIA QUANTICO Quantico Middle/High School 40,586 40,586 Replacement. DODEA GERMANY KAISERLAUTERN AB Kaiserslautern Elementary 49,907 -49,907 0 School Replacement. DODEA GERMANY RAMSTEIN AB Ramstein High School 98,762 -98,762 0 Replacement. DODEA GERMANY WEISBADEN Hainerberg Elementary 58,899 -58,899 0 School Replacement. DODEA GERMANY WEISBADEN Wiesbaden Middle School 50,756 -50,756 0 Replacement. DODEA JAPAN KADENA AB Kadena Middle School 38,792 38,792 Addition/Renovation. DODEA KOREA CAMP WALKER Daegu Middle/High School 52,164 52,164 Replacement. DODEA UNITED KINGDOM ROYAL AF LAKENHEATH Lakenheath High School 69,638 -69,638 0 Replacement. MDA ALASKA CLEAR AFS BMDS Upgrade Early Warning 17,204 17,204 Radar. MDA ALASKA FT GREELY Mechanical-Electrical Bldg 82,000 82,000 Missile Field #1. MDA ROMANIA DEVESELU, ROMANIA Aegis Ashore Missile Def 85,000 85,000 Sys Cmplx, Increm. 2. MDA WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION AN/TPY-2 Radar Site........ 15,000 15,000 NSA MARYLAND FT MEADE NSAW Recapitalize Building 58,000 58,000 #1/Site M Inc 2. NSA MARYLAND FT MEADE High Performance Computing 431,000 -50,000 381,000 Capacity Inc 3. SOCOM CALIFORNIA BRAWLEY SOF Desert Warfare Training 23,095 23,095 Center. SOCOM COLORADO FT CARSON, CO SOF Group Support Battalion 22,282 22,282 SOCOM FLORIDA HURLBURT FIELD SOF ADD/ALTER Operations 7,900 7,900 Facility. SOCOM FLORIDA KEY WEST SOF Boat Docks............. 3,600 3,600 SOCOM KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY SOF Group Special Troops 26,342 26,342 Battalion. SOCOM NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC SOF Performance Resiliency 14,400 14,400 Center. SOCOM NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC SOF Sustainment Training 28,977 28,977 Complex. SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Upgrade Training 14,719 14,719 Facility. SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Engineer Training 10,419 10,419 Facility. SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Civil Affairs Battalion 37,689 37,689 Annex. SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Language and Cultural 64,606 64,606 Center. SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Combat Medic Skills 7,600 7,600 Sustain. Course Bldg. SOCOM VIRGINIA DAM NECK SOF Human Performance 11,147 11,147 Center. SOCOM VIRGINIA JT EXP BASE LITTLE SOF LOGSU Two Operations 30,404 30,404 CREEK--STORY Facility. SOCOM JAPAN TORRI COMMO STATION SOF Facility Augmentation.. 71,451 71,451 SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Squadron Operations 11,652 -11,652 0 Facility. SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Hangar/AMU............. 24,371 -24,371 0 SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Airfiled Pavements..... 24,077 -24,077 0 SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF MRSP and Parts Storage. 6,797 -6,797 0 TMA KENTUCKY FT KNOX Ambulatory Health Center... 265,000 -190,000 75,000 TMA MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GND Public Health Command Lab 210,000 -135,000 75,000 Replacement. TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Mech & Electrical 46,800 46,800 Improvements. TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Parking Garage............. 20,000 20,000 TMA MARYLAND FT DETRICK USAMRIID Replacement Stage 13,000 13,000 1, Incr 8. TMA MARYLAND JT BASE ANDREWS Ambulatory Care Center Inc 76,200 -38,100 38,100 2. TMA NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB Medical Clinic Replacement. 60,000 60,000 TMA TEXAS FT BLISS Hospital Replacement Incr 5 252,100 -152,100 100,000 TMA TEXAS JT BASE SAN ANTONIO SAMMC Hyperbaric Facility 12,600 12,600 Addition. TMA BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA Medical/Dental Clinic 45,400 45,400 Replacement. TMA GERMANY RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS Medical Center Replacement, 151,545 -75,000 76,545 Incr 3. WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON PFPA Support Operations 14,800 14,800 Center. WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Boundary Channel Access 6,700 6,700 Control Point. WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Army Navy Drive Tour Bus 1,850 -1,850 0 Drop Off. WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Raven Rock Exterior Cooling 4,100 4,100 Tower. WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Raven Rock Administrative 32,000 32,000 Facility Upgrade. DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000 Construction. DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 7,430 7,430 Construction. DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 5,409 5,409 Construction. MDA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 2,000 2,000 Construction. NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 1,500 1,500 Construction. SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 5,170 5,170 Construction. TJS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Exercise Related Minor 9,730 9,730 Construction. TMA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 9,578 9,578 Construction. DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 50,192 50,192 DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 75,905 75,905 MDA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning & Design.......... 10,891 10,891 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 57,053 57,053 SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 36,866 36,866 WHS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 6,931 6,931 SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 3,985,300 -1,054,641 2,930,659 SUBTOTAL, ACTIVE SERVICES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 7,962,017 -1,332,691 6,629,326 ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY ALABAMA DECATUR National Guard Readiness 4,000 4,000 Center Add/Alt. ARMY ARKANSAS FT CHAFFEE Scout/RECCE Gunnery Complex 21,000 21,000 ARMY FLORIDA PINELLAS PARK Ready Building............. 5,700 5,700 ARMY ILLINOIS KANKAKEE Readiness Center........... 14,000 14,000 ARMY ILLINOIS KANKAKEE Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 28,000 28,000 ARMY MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS Enlisted Barracks, 19,000 19,000 Transient Training Add. ARMY MICHIGAN CAMP GRAYLING Enlisted Barracks, 17,000 17,000 Transient Training. ARMY MINNESOTA STILLWATER Readiness Center........... 17,000 17,000 ARMY MISSISSIPPI CAMP SHELBY Water Supply/Treatment 3,000 3,000 Building, Potable. ARMY MISSISSIPPI PASCAGOULA Readiness Center........... 4,500 4,500 ARMY MISSOURI MACON Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 9,100 9,100 ARMY MISSOURI WHITEMAN AFB Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 5,000 5,000 ARMY NEW YORK NEW YORK Readiness Center Add/Alt... 31,000 31,000 ARMY OHIO RAVENNA ARMY AMMU PLANT Sanitary Sewer............. 5,200 5,200 ARMY PENNSYLVANIA FT INDIANTOWN GAP Aircraft Maintenance 40,000 40,000 Instructional Building. ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 13,000 13,000 ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE Readiness Center........... 13,000 13,000 ARMY TEXAS FT WORTH Armed Forces Reserve Center 14,270 14,270 Add. ARMY WYOMING AFTON National Guard Readiness 10,200 10,200 Center. ARMY PUERTO RICO CAMP SANTIAGO Maneuver Area Training & 5,600 5,600 Equipment Site Addit. ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 12,240 12,240 Construction. ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 29,005 29,005 SUBTOTAL, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 320,815 0 320,815 ....................... ....................... AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AF ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM IAP Add to and Alter 8,500 8,500 Distributed Ground Station F. AF INDIANA HULMAN REGIONAL AIRPORT Add/Alter Bldg 37 For Dist 7,300 7,300 Common Ground Sta. AF MARYLAND FT MEADE 175th Network Warfare 4,000 4,000 Squadron Facility. AF MARYLAND MARTIN STATE AIRPORT CYBER/ISR Facility......... 8,000 8,000 AF MONTANA GREAT FALLS IAP Intra-Theater Airlift 22,000 22,000 Conversion. AF NEW YORK FT DRUM, NEW YORK MQ-9 Flight Training Unit 4,700 4,700 Hangar. AF OHIO SPRINGFIELD BECKLEY-MAP Alter Intelligence 7,200 7,200 Operations Facility. AF PENNSYLVANIA FT INDIANTOWN GAP Communications Operations 7,700 7,700 and Training Facili. AF RHODE ISLAND QUONSET STATE AIRPORT C-130J Flight Simulator 6,000 6,000 Training Facility. AF TENNESSEE MCGHEE-TYSON AIRPORT TEC Expansion- Dormitory & 18,000 18,000 Classroom Facility. AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 13,000 13,000 Construction. AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 13,400 13,400 SUBTOTAL, AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 119,800 0 119,800 SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 440,615 0 440,615 ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY CALIFORNIA CAMP PARKS Army Reserve Center........ 17,500 17,500 ARMY CALIFORNIA FT HUNTER LIGGETT TASS Training Center (TTC). 16,500 16,500 ARMY MARYLAND BOWIE Army Reserve Center........ 25,500 25,500 ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Consolidated Dining 13,400 13,400 LAKEHURST Facility. ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Central Issue Facility..... 7,900 7,900 LAKEHURST ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Automated Multipurpose 9,500 9,500 LAKEHURST Machine Gun (MPMG). ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Modified Record Fire Range. 5,400 5,400 LAKEHURST ARMY NEW YORK BULLVILLE Army Reserve Center........ 14,500 14,500 ARMY NC FT BRAGG Army Reserve Center........ 24,500 24,500 ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY Access Control Point/Mail/ 17,500 17,500 Freight Center. ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY NCO Academy Dining Facility 5,900 5,900 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 1,748 1,748 Construction. ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 14,212 14,212 SUBTOTAL, ARMY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 174,060 0 174,060 ....................... ....................... NAVY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION NAVY CALIFORNIA MARCH AFB NOSC Moreno Valley Reserve 11,086 11,086 Training Center. NAVY MISSOURI KANSAS CITY Reserve Training Center-- 15,020 15,020 Belton, Missouri. NAVY TENNESSEE MEMPHIS Reserve Boat Maintenance 4,330 4,330 and Storage Facility. NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE USMCR Planning and Design.. 1,040 1,040 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE MCNR Planning & Design..... 1,500 1,500 SUBTOTAL, NAVY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 32,976 0 32,976 ....................... ....................... AIR FORCE RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AF CALIFORNIA MARCH AFB Joint Regional Deployment 19,900 19,900 Processing Center,. AF FLORIDA HOMESTEAD AFS Entry Control Complex...... 9,800 9,800 AF OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB Air Control Group Squadron 12,200 12,200 Operations. AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 1,530 1,530 Construction. AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 2,229 2,229 SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 45,659 0 45,659 SUBTOTAL, RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 252,695 0 252,695 ....................... ....................... TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION MAJOR ACCOUNTS 8,655,327 -1,332,691 7,322,636 ....................... ....................... CHEM-DEMIL ARMY KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT Ammunition Demilitarization 122,536 122,536 Facility, Ph XIV. SUBTOTAL, CHEM-DEMIL 122,536 0 122,536 ....................... ....................... NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC NATO SECURITY Nato Security Investment 239,700 239,700 INVESTMENT PRGM PRGM. SUBTOTAL, NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 239,700 0 239,700 ....................... ....................... MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING ARMY FAMILY HOUSING ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY Family Housing New 23,000 23,000 Construction (56 units). ARMY GERMANY SOUTH CAMP VILSECK Family Housing New 16,600 -16,600 0 Construction (29 units). ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Family Housing P & D....... 4,408 4,408 SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 44,008 -16,600 27,408 ARMY FAMILY HOUSING O&M ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities.................. 96,907 96,907 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 54,433 54,433 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services................... 13,536 13,536 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings................ 33,125 33,125 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous.............. 646 646 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leased Housing............. 180,924 180,924 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 107,639 107,639 Property Facilities. ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Military Housing 25,661 25,661 Privitization Initiative. SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING O&M 512,871 0 512,871 SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING 556,879 -16,600 540,279 ....................... ....................... NAVY FAMILY HOUSING NAVY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Improvements............... 68,969 68,969 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Design..................... 4,438 4,438 SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 73,407 0 73,407 NAVY FAMILY HOUSING O&M NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 94,313 94,313 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 21,073 21,073 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 60,782 60,782 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account...... 362 362 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 20,596 20,596 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 74,962 74,962 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 90,122 90,122 Property. NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Privatization Support Costs 27,634 27,634 SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING O&M 389,844 0 389,844 SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING 463,251 0 463,251 ....................... ....................... AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Improvements............... 72,093 72,093 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 4,267 4,267 SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 76,360 0 76,360 AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING O&M AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 70,532 70,532 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 53,044 53,044 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 16,862 16,862 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 39,470 39,470 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account...... 1,954 1,954 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 54,514 54,514 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance (RPMA RPMC).... 110,786 110,786 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Housing Privatization...... 41,436 41,436 SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING O&M 388,598 0 388,598 SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING 464,958 0 464,958 ....................... ....................... DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING O&M DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 288 288 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 12 12 DIA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 3,196 3,196 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 20 20 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 32 32 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 418 418 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 67 67 DIA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 40,433 40,433 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 10,994 10,994 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 311 311 Property. NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 74 74 Property. SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING O&M 55,845 0 55,845 SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING 55,845 0 55,845 ....................... ....................... DOD FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Family Housing Improvement 1,780 1,780 Fund. SUBTOTAL, DOD FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,780 0 1,780 ....................... ....................... TOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING 1,542,713 -16,600 1,526,113 ....................... ....................... BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ARMY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BRAC, ARMY Base Realignment and 180,401 180,401 Closure. SUBTOTAL, ARMY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE 180,401 0 180,401 ....................... ....................... NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BRAC, NAVY Base Realignment & Closure. 108,300 108,300 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-172: NWS Seal Beach, 5,766 5,766 Concord, CA. NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-138: NAS Brunswick, ME. 993 993 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-157: MCSA Kansas City, 40 40 MO. NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-84: JRB Willow Grove & 1,216 1,216 Cambria Reg AP. NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-100: Planing, Design 7,277 7,277 and Management. NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-101: Various Locations. 20,988 20,988 SUBTOTAL, NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE 144,580 0 144,580 ....................... ....................... AIR FORCE BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DoD BRAC Activities--AF.... 126,376 126,376 SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE 126,376 0 126,376 ....................... ....................... TOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE 451,357 0 451,357 ....................... ....................... TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SECONDARY ACCOUNTS 2,356,306 -16,600 2,339,706 ....................... ....................... GRAND TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 11,011,633 -1,349,291 9,662,342 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senate Program FY 2014 Request Senate Change Authorized ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY & ENERGY RESTORATION (HS)..... 16,000 -16,000 0 Not a defense function........................... [-16,000] TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY.......... 16,000 0 0 NUCLEAR ENERGY IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY.................. 94,000 94,000 TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY..................................... 94,000 0 94,000 WEAPONS ACTIVITIES LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMS AND MAJOR ALTERATIONS B61 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM.......................... 537,044 537,044 W76 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM.......................... 235,382 235,382 W78/88-1 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM..................... 72,691 72,691 W88 ALT 370......................................... 169,487 169,487 TOTAL, STOCKPILE ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN................ 1,014,604 0 1,014,604 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS B61 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 83,536 83,536 W76 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 47,187 47,187 W78 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 54,381 54,381 W80 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 50,330 50,330 B83 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 54,948 54,948 W87 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 101,506 101,506 W88 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 62,600 62,600 TOTAL, STOCKPILE SYSTEMS.............................. 454,488 0 454,488 WEAPONS DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.......................... 49,264 49,264 STOCKPILE SERVICES PRODUCTION SUPPORT.................................. 321,416 321,416 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT.................... 26,349 26,349 R&D CERTIFICATION AND SAFETY........................ 191,259 191,259 MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND PRODUCTION.............. 214,187 214,187 PLUTONIUM SUSTAINMENT............................... 156,949 156,949 TOTAL, STOCKPILE SERVICES............................. 910,160 0 910,160 TOTAL, DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK.......................... 2,428,516 0 2,428,516 CAMPAIGNS: SCIENCE CAMPAIGN ADVANCED CERTIFICATION.............................. 54,730 54,730 PRIMARY ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES..................... 109,231 109,231 DYNAMIC MATERIALS PROPERTIES........................ 116,965 116,965 ADVANCED RADIOGRAPHY................................ 30,509 30,509 SECONDARY ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES................... 86,467 86,467 TOTAL, SCIENCE CAMPAIGN............................... 397,902 0 397,902 ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN ENHANCED SURETY..................................... 51,771 51,771 WEAPON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGY.... 23,727 23,727 NUCLEAR SURVIVABILITY............................... 19,504 19,504 ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE............................... 54,909 54,909 TOTAL, ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN........................... 149,911 0 149,911 INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION IGNITION AND HIGH YIELD CAMPAIGN IGNITION............................................ 80,245 80,245 SUPPORT OF OTHER STOCKPILE PROGRAMS................. 15,001 15,001 DIAGNOSTICS, CRYOGENICS AND EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT.... 59,897 59,897 PULSED POWER INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION............ 5,024 5,024 JOINT PROGRAM IN HIGH ENERGY DENSITY LABORATORY 8,198 8,198 PLASMAS............................................ FACILITY OPERATIONS AND TARGET PRODUCTION........... 232,678 232,678 TOTAL, INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION AND HIGH YIELD 401,043 0 401,043 CAMPAIGN............................................. ADVANCED SIMULATION AND COMPUTING CAMPAIGN............ 564,329 564,329 READINESS CAMPAIGN COMPONENT MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT................. 106,085 106,085 TRITIUM READINESS................................... 91,695 91,695 TOTAL, READINESS CAMPAIGN............................. 197,780 0 197,780 TOTAL, CAMPAIGNS........................................ 1,710,965 0 1,710,965 NUCLEAR PROGRAMS NUCLEAR OPERATIONS CAPABILITY......................... 265,937 265,937 CAPABILITIES BASED INVESTMENTS........................ 39,558 39,558 CONSTRUCTION: 12-D-301 TRU WASTE FACILITIES, LANL................. 26,722 26,722 11-D-801 TA-55 REINVESTMENT PROJECT PHASE 2, LANL... 30,679 30,679 07-D-220 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY 55,719 55,719 UPGRADE PROJECT, LANL.............................. 06-D-141 PED/CONSTRUCTION, URANIUM CAPABILITIES 325,835 325,835 REPLACEMENT PROJECT Y-12........................... TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION................................... 438,955 0 438,955 TOTAL, NUCLEAR PROGRAMS................................. 744,450 0 744,450 SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT.............................. 122,072 122,072 PROGRAM DIRECTION..................................... 97,118 97,118 TOTAL, SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET...................... 219,190 0 219,190 SITE STEWARDSHIP NUCLEAR MATERIALS INTEGRATION......................... 17,679 17,679 CORPORATE PROJECT MANAGEMENT.......................... 13,017 13,017 MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM..... 14,531 14,531 ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE SITE OPERATIONS..................................... 1,112,455 1,112,455 SITE SUPPORT........................................ 109,561 109,561 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 433,764 433,764 FACILITIES DISPOSITION.............................. 5,000 5,000 SUBTOTAL, ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE................... 1,660,780 0 1,660,780 TOTAL, SITE STEWARDSHIP................................. 1,706,007 0 1,706,007 DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE............................ 664,981 664,981 CONSTRUCTION: 14-D-710 DAF ARGUS, NNSS............................ 14,000 14,000 TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY......................... 678,981 0 678,981 NNSA CIO ACTIVITIES..................................... 148,441 148,441 LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS.............................. 279,597 279,597 SUBTOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.............................. 7,916,147 0 7,916,147 ADJUSTMENTS USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES............................ -47,738 -47,738 RESCISSION............................................ 0 TOTAL, ADJUSTMENTS...................................... -47,738 0 -47,738 TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES................................. 7,868,409 0 7,868,409 DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE.................... 424,487 424,487 DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION R&D OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.......................... 388,838 388,838 NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY........... 141,675 141,675 INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL PROTECTION AND COOPERATION..... 369,625 369,625 FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION U.S. SURPLUS FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE U.S. PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION...................... 157,557 157,557 U.S. URANIUM DISPOSITION........................ 25,000 25,000 TOTAL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE................. 182,557 0 182,557 CONSTRUCTION: 99-D-143 MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY, 320,000 80,000 400,000 SAVANNAH RIVER, SC............................. Program increase........................... [80,000] TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION............................... 320,000 80,000 400,000 TOTAL, U.S. SURPLUS FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION... 502,557 80,000 582,557 TOTAL, FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION.................. 502,557 80,000 582,557 LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS............................ 93,703 93,703 TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS........ 1,920,885 80,000 2,000,885 NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE PROGRAM...... 181,293 181,293 COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS...... 74,666 74,666 SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION.............. 2,176,844 80,000 2,256,844 ADJUSTMENTS USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES............................ -36,702 -36,702 TOTAL, ADJUSTMENTS...................................... -36,702 0 -36,702 TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................... 2,140,142 80,000 2,220,142 NAVAL REACTORS NAVAL REACTORS OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE............ 455,740 -2,000 453,740 Excess to need..................................... [-2,000] NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT.............................. 419,400 419,400 OHIO REPLACEMENT REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT............ 126,400 126,400 S8G PROTOTYPE REFUELING................................. 144,400 144,400 PROGRAM DIRECTION....................................... 44,404 44,404 CONSTRUCTION: 14-D-902 KL MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION LABORATORY 1,000 1,000 EXPANSION, KAPL...................................... 14-D-901 SPENT FUEL HANDLING RECAPITALIZATION PROJECT, 45,400 45,400 NRF.................................................. 13-D-905 REMOTE-HANDLED LOW-LEVEL WASTE FACILITY, INL. 21,073 21,073 13-D-904 KS RADIOLOGICAL WORK AND STORAGE BUILDING, 600 2,000 2,600 KSO.................................................. Program increase................................. [2,000] NAVAL REACTOR FACILITY, ID............................ 1,700 1,700 TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION..................................... 69,773 2,000 71,773 SUBTOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS.................................. 1,260,117 0 1,260,117 ADJUSTMENTS: USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES (NAVAL REACTORS)........... -13,983 -13,983 TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS..................................... 1,246,134 0 1,246,134 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR............................. 397,784 397,784 TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR........................ 397,784 0 397,784 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP CLOSURE SITES: CLOSURE SITES ADMINISTRATION.......................... 4,702 4,702 HANFORD SITE: RIVER CORRIDOR AND OTHER CLEANUP OPERATIONS........... 393,634 20,000 413,634 Program increase................................. [20,000] CENTRAL PLATEAU REMEDIATION........................... 513,450 513,450 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT............. 14,701 14,701 TOTAL, HANFORD SITE..................................... 921,785 20,000 941,785 IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY: IDAHO CLEANUP AND WASTE DISPOSITION................... 362,100 30,000 392,100 Program increase................................. [30,000] IDAHO COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT................ 2,910 2,910 TOTAL, IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY........................ 365,010 30,000 395,010 NNSA SITES LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY................ 1,476 1,476 NUCLEAR FACILITY D & D SEPARATIONS PROCESS RESEARCH 23,700 23,700 UNIT................................................. NEVADA................................................ 61,897 61,897 SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES.......................... 2,814 2,814 LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY........................ 219,789 40,000 259,789 Program increase................................. [40,000] TOTAL, NNSA SITES AND NEVADA OFF-SITES.................. 309,676 40,000 349,676 OAK RIDGE RESERVATION: OR NUCLEAR FACILITY D & D............................. 73,716 73,716 OR CLEANUP AND DISPOSITION............................ 115,855 10,000 125,855 Program increase................................. [10,000] OR RESERVATION COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT....... 4,365 4,365 TOTAL, OAK RIDGE RESERVATION............................ 193,936 10,000 203,936 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION: WASTE TREATMENT AND IMMOBILIZATION PLANT 01-D-416 A-E/ORP-0060 / MAJOR CONSTRUCTION.......... 690,000 690,000 TANK FARM ACTIVITIES RAD LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION. 520,216 50,000 570,216 Program increase................................. [50,000] TOTAL, OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION....................... 1,210,216 50,000 1,260,216 SAVANNAH RIVER SITES: SAVANNAH RIVER RISK MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS............. 432,491 432,491 SR COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT................... 11,210 11,210 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE: RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND 552,560 150,000 702,560 DISPOSITION........................................ Program increase................................. [150,000] CONSTRUCTION: 05-D-405 SALT WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY, SAVANNAH 92,000 92,000 RIVER............................................ TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION................................. 92,000 0 92,000 TOTAL, RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE.................. 644,560 150,000 794,560 TOTAL, SAVANNAH RIVER SITE.............................. 1,088,261 150,000 1,238,261 WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT........................... 203,390 33,000 236,390 Program increase................................. [33,000] TOTAL, WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT...................... 203,390 33,000 236,390 PROGRAM DIRECTION....................................... 280,784 20,000 300,784 Program increase................................. [20,000] PROGRAM SUPPORT......................................... 17,979 17,979 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY: OAK RIDGE RESERVATION................................. 18,800 18,800 PADUCAH............................................... 9,435 9,435 PORTSMOUTH............................................ 8,578 8,578 RICHLAND/HANFORD SITE................................. 69,078 10,000 79,078 Program increase................................. [10,000] SAVANNAH RIVER SITE................................... 121,196 10,000 131,196 Program increase................................. [10,000] WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT......................... 4,977 4,977 WEST VALLEY........................................... 2,015 2,015 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.................................. 24,091 10,000 34,091 Program increase................................. [10,000] SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP................... 4,853,909 383,000 8,902,461 URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND CONTRIBUTION (LEGISLATIVE 463,000 -463,000 0 PROPOSAL).............................................. Program decrease........................................ [-463,000] TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP...................... 5,316,909 -80,000 5,236,909 OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY........................... 143,616 143,616 PROGRAM DIRECTION..................................... 108,301 108,301 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENT TOTAL, HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY...................... 251,917 0 251,917 SPECIALIZED SECURITY ACTIVITIES......................... 196,322 196,322 OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT LEGACY MANAGEMENT..................................... 163,271 163,271 PROGRAM DIRECTION..................................... 13,712 13,712 TOTAL, OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT...................... 176,983 0 176,983 DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER............................... 38,979 38,979 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER............................. 79,857 79,857 TOTAL, DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT........... 118,836 0 118,836 OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS.......................... 5,022 5,022 SUBTOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................ 749,080 0 749,080 TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................... 749,080 0 749,080 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS Departmental Recommendations Four separate legislative proposals on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 were submitted as executive communications to the President of the Senate by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the Department of Defense and subsequently referred to the committee. Information on these executive communications appears below. All of these executive communications are available for review at the committee. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Received in the Executive Communication No. Dated Committee on Armed Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EC-1470......................... April 29, 2013.... May 15, 2013 EC-1552......................... May 7, 2013....... May 21, 2013 EC-1592......................... May 20, 2013...... May 23, 2013 EC-1766......................... May 22, 2013...... June 4, 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On May 23, 2013, Senators Levin and Inhofe introduced by request the administration's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. This bill--S. 1034--was introduced for the purpose of placing the administration's proposals before Congress and the public without expressing the views of Senators Levin or Inhofe on the substance of those proposals. In accordance with past practice, the committee reported an original bill rather than acting on S. 1034. Committee Action The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed by roll call vote, 23-3, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, and Blunt. Opposed: Senators Vitter, Lee, and Cruz. The 13 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to the bill which were considered during the course of the full committee markup are as follows: 1. MOTION: To include a provision that would require a review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual offenses to trial by court-martial. VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 17-9. In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Blunt, and Lee. Opposed: Senators Udall, Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Vitter, and Cruz 2. MOTION: To include multiple provisions addressing sexual assaults in the military. VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 26-0. In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. Opposed: None. 3. MOTION: To conduct full Committee markups in closed session because classified information will be discussed. VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 20-6. In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, and Blunt. Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Lee, and Cruz. 4. MOTION: To include a provision exempting the Department of Defense from alternative fuel procurement requirement. VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 13-13. In favor: Senators Manchin, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King 5. MOTION: To include a provision for limitations on allowable costs of salaries of contractor employees. VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12-14. In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, King, and Vitter. Opposed: Senators Levin, Shaheen, Kaine, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 6. MOTION: To include an alternative provision providing for limitations on allowable costs of salaries of contractor employees. VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 6-20. In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, and Graham. Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Ayotte, Fischer, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 7. MOTION: To include a provision for cost comparison for procurement of alternative fuel. VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12-14. In favor: Senators Manchin, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Fischer. 8. MOTION: To include a provision requiring certification for biofuel refinery construction. VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 11-15. In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Fischer. 9. MOTION: To include report language addressing the use of amounts authorized for base defense requirements to pay for warfighting costs of Overseas Contingency Operations. VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12-14. In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King. 10. MOTION: To strike a provision that would restore the previous policy regarding restrictions on use of Department of Defense medical facilities. VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 15-11. In favor: Senators Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, and King. 11. MOTION: To include a provision to enhance the protection of rights of conscience of members of the armed forces and chaplains of such members. VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 19-7. In favor: Senators Nelson, McCaskill, Hagan, Manchin, Donnelly, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Udall, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Hirono. 12. MOTION: To strike the one-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop and carry out infrastructure projects in Afghanistan and require a report on transition of project management. VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 7-19. In favor: Senators McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Lee, and Cruz. Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, Udall, Hagan, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, and Blunt. 13. MOTION: To restrict funding for the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan. VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 26-0. In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. Opposed: None. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented during Senate floor debate on the legislation. Regulatory Impact Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2014. Changes in Existing Law Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. ADDITIONAL VIEWS ---------- ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE One of the defining characteristics of the Senate Armed Services Committee is its Members' ability to put partisan considerations aside and work together toward enhancing our national security, increasing the capabilities of our armed forces, and providing a better quality of life for our service members. This is not to mean the Members of the Committee do not have differences of opinion regarding important policy matters. However, the Members of the Committee and I are grateful for Chairman Levin's leadership and his tireless commitment to ensure every Member's concerns are heard and considered. In order to further the Committee's goals of enhancing our national security and increasing the capabilities of our armed forces, as Ranking Member, I developed a list of policy areas on which I will place particular importance. I am pleased to report significant progress has been made in each of these policy areas during the Committee's consideration of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization bill, but more needs to be done. Missile Defense and Nuclear Modernization In the area of Missile Defense, the Committee agreed to an amendment offered by Senator Ayotte and myself which added an additional $30 million for the deployment of an X-band radar, or other comparable sensor, to enhance the defense of the homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats. Deployed in a location optimized for the defense of the East Coast, this radar will be an important step toward providing a more effective defense against the growing nuclear and ballistic missile threat from Iran. But this is not sufficient. Congress should direct the Department of Defense to begin deployment of an additional homeland missile defense interceptor site to better defend the East Coast. Since an East Coast anti- ballistic missile interceptor site was included in the House's version of the Defense Authorization bill, it is my hope that continued progress in this area will occur during the Conference Committee. Separately, I secured an ``Item of Special Interest'' in the bill encouraging the Missile Defense Agency to develop a next generation advanced kill vehicle for the ground-based interceptor. This will further enable our defenses to stay ahead of future threats. Regarding the modernization of our nuclear forces, the Committee agreed to fully fund the President's budget request. However, the amount requested by the administration for the National Nuclear Security Administration was $285 million less than commitment for Fiscal Year 2014 made by the President during consideration of the New START Treaty. The bill also contains a legislative provision reaffirming Congress' commitment to modernize our triad of nuclear delivery systems, which consists of bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and ballistic missile submarines. Most importantly, this legislation also includes support for the renewal of our nuclear weapons production capabilities. In addition, to prevent the President from contemplating unilateral nuclear force reductions below New START Treaty levels or entering into an executive agreement with the Russian President, I authored an amendment expressing the Sense of Congress that any future reductions in our nuclear forces must take place by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Unfortunately, due to jurisdiction issues, this amendment was ruled out of order. However, I am committed to offering this amendment again on the Senate floor. Acquisition Reform Despite important reforms such as the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, defense acquisition programs continue to be behind schedule and over budget. During this period of budget austerity, it is critical every taxpayer dollar allocated to defense acquisition be spent prudently. Accordingly, I initiated a number of reforms which were included in the Defense Authorization bill. These include a section which authorizes the Comptroller General to review the Department of Defense's processes for the acquisition of major weapons systems. The objective of the review is to identify those acquisition processes that provide no value, little value, or which value is outweighed by the creation of additional costs and schedule delays. The recommendations of the report can then be incorporated in next year's Defense Authorization bill to create greater efficiencies and savings in the acquisition realm. In addition, I was able to place in the bill a second Comptroller General review based upon the acquisition reform recommendations of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review's Independent Panel. Specifically, the review will evaluate the Panel's recommendation to place greater emphasis on the role of the armed services, in particular the respective Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, in the acquisition of weapons systems. As a result, it is my hope the review will identify new management models to increase the effectiveness of the acquisition system. Readiness and Capabilities I am very concerned about the rapid degradation of military capabilities of both our forces engaged in combat and those preparing for the next contingency operation. This deterioration is a result of the administration's decision to cut Defense budgets by over $600 billion over ten years and is in addition to those cuts required by sequestration. Accordingly, I crafted several provisions included in the bill which are designed to direct the attention of the Committee to the negative effects of sequestration, in particular the pending reality of a hollow force. In addition, I added language requiring each branch of the Armed Forces to establish a long-term plan and investment strategy for the reconstitution of military equipment being returned from Afghanistan. I was also pleased to work with the Chairman to establish a new authority to allow the Department of Defense to transfer funds to a new Readiness Restoration Account. This account will permit the Department to transfer funds from lower priorities to more critical areas, such as military training and the maintenance of military equipment. Threat, Strategy and Resources In an era of fiscal austerity, our strategies and resources must be tightly matched to confront looming threats. Therefore, I strongly supported a report to assess the capabilities of stealth, fifth generation Chinese fighter aircraft and their potential impact to our Pacific strategy. This assessment will also review the capabilities of the Taiwanese Air Force. In the Middle East, $75 million under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program was allocated towards reducing the threat of Syrian chemical weapon proliferation. As part of this effort, $150 million was also allotted to assist the Jordanian Armed Forces with their security operations on its border with Syria. As the events in Benghazi highlighted, U.S. Africa Command (``AFRICOM'') has not received sufficient resources to thoroughly counter the growing terrorist threat in North Africa. One of the lessons learned from this tragedy is in order to meet the threats of today and tomorrow we must adopt an interagency strategy which is designed to overcome the challenges which confront not just one nation but the region as a whole. Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense is directed to review AFRICOM's rapid reaction assets and develop a regional strategy which addresses the terrorist threat in North Africa. In addition, the bill extends through 2018 the Global Train and Equip Authority. Combat commanders routinely state this authority greatly assists our forces in achieving theater counterterrorism and stability operational objectives. Efficiencies During sequestration it is vital we make every dollar count. Therefore, I have worked to ensure, through report requirements and assessments from the General Accounting Office, that the Department of Defense's science and technology efforts are focused on current warfighter requirements, quickly transiting technologies from the lab to the battlefield, and eliminating duplicative programs. Accordingly, the bill reallocates $200 million within the science and technology budget to more effectively meet the warfighter's requirements. Combating Sequestration The bill which the Committee passed provides $526.5 billion to the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, I do not believe this is a sufficient sum to adequately confront our nation's current and future threats. However, what is even more disturbing is we are on the verge of cutting the defense budget even further as a new round of sequestration is set to take effect next year. These automatic and mindless cuts continue to plague our military. Specifically, sequestration undermines the ability of military commanders to plan, it wreaks havoc on our industrial base, and the resulting uncertainty can only embolden our adversaries around the world. Accordingly, during markup, I offered a proposal to cancel sequestration for the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 2014. This amendment was fully paid for with an offset. Unfortunately, the Committee's Chairman ruled my amendment out of order due to a jurisdictional issue. However, I am not deterred and I am strongly considering offering this amendment again during the bill's consideration on the Senate floor. Ending Sexual Assault in the Military Ending the scourge of sexual assault in our nation's military is one of my highest priorities. The issue of sexual assault requires vigorous and continuous oversight to ensure its complete eradication from our military forces. However, I believe the most effective way to solve this problem is by better utilizing one of the military's greatest strengths: the chain of command. Therefore, I was grateful to work with Chairman Levin to craft reforms which will better ensure justice is done while maintaining the chain of command. Specifically, the Levin/Inhofe amendment, which was adopted, requires a higher level of review when a commander decides not to prosecute a sexual assault allegation. This higher review will go all the way to the respective service Secretary when a commander disagrees with a military lawyer's recommendation to prosecute a sexual offense. In addition, recently, there have been a small number of cases where a commander has overturned a sexual assault conviction. To address this issue, Senator Graham offered an amendment which restricts the ability of a commander to modify court-martial findings of guilty for a sexual offense. I look forward to the reconsideration of the Graham Amendment when the bill is brought to the Senate floor later this year. Guantanamo Bay Detainees This year's Senate Defense Authorization bill's provisions regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees are a fundamental shift from policies enacted in previous years' Defense Authorization Acts. Specifically, this bill creates large loopholes which, if enacted, will result in the transfer of detainees to the shores of our country and permit their easier conveyance to foreign countries. This contrasts sharply with previous years' legislation which ensured detainees would not be brought to the United States and would not be transferred to other countries unless reasonable conditions were met. Adding to my agitation on this matter, is that previous years' statutes were built upon a bipartisan consensus, consistent with public opinion, which was formed after years of congressional debate and were written to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. Removing these provisions will make our nation less secure. Accordingly, I will resolutely oppose the inclusion of these proposed sections in the final Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. Putting the So-Called Green Agenda Before the Needs of the Warfighter Under current law, the Department of Defense is required to certify the alternative fuel it purchases does not exceed the level of greenhouse gas emissions of equivalent petroleum products. Clearly, this statue, Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, was crafted to support a political agenda rather than to meet the operational requirements of the warfighter. Specifically, this prohibition denies the Department access to the full range of synthetic fuels which are comparable in price to fossil fuels. Therefore, I was very disappointed when an amendment designed to exempt the Department from the onerous provisions of Section 526 was not adopted by the Committee. I look forward to revisiting this issue when the bill is considered on the floor of the Senate. In addition, in an effort to create savings for the Department, I offered two amendments regarding the use of Defense funds for a national biofuels program. The first amendment codified the existing policy of the Department not to make bulk purchases of alternative drop-in replacement fuels, unless those fuels are cost-competitive with petroleum products. The second amendment provided the Secretary of Defense the discretion to assess, in light of sequestration, whether continued construction of a commercial biofuels refinery is in the best interest of the national defense. I strongly believe the military is better served by cancelling the construction of this refinery and using the resulting $170 million in savings for more urgent priorities. For example, the $170 million could be used to resume flight training for 10 of the 17 Air Force squadrons which are currently grounded due to sequestration. Another possibility is to procure for the Marines more efficient power generators for forward locations in Afghanistan. Pursing this option will save fuel, reduce the number fuel conveys, and save lives. Lack of Funding for Overseas Contingency Operations There exists no more important responsibility of a government then to fully support the men and women it places in harm's way. Therefore, I am astonished neither the Administration nor the Committee has acted to rectify significant funding shortfalls in accounts which are used to pay for our operations in Afghanistan and maintain the capabilities of our armed forces. Congress routinely authorizes funding for our military through two separate and distinct funding mechanisms. The first is for ``base'' accounts, which pays for normal military expenses in such areas as personnel compensation, training, and acquisition of weapons systems. The second, called Overseas Contingency Operations (``OCO'') accounts, are for ongoing combat operations and responding to humanitarian crisis. OCO funds are usually authorized through supplemental emergency funding requests submitted by the Executive Branch. One of the primary benefits of using these two account systems is to ensure core defense requirements are not sacrificed to pay for combat and humanitarian operations. Therefore, ensuring both the base and OCO accounts receive the appropriate level of funding is critical to maintaining the long-term health of our military and successfully prosecuting our operations overseas. In order to ensure our forces receive all the support and equipment they need, OCO funding has previously garnered strong bipartisan support. However, despite the vital importance of OCO funds, currently there is an $11.0 billion shortfall for Fiscal Year 2013. According to the Administration this deficit is a result of an ``operating tempo exceed[ing] the level anticipated,'' and ``transportation costs are also higher because of unanticipated problems with the Ground Lines of Communication in Pakistan.'' One would expect Congress, working with the Executive Branch, would seek an immediate remedy to this situation. Therefore, I was indignant and shocked when the Committee did not rectify this significant deficit nor the Administration offer more than a partial remedy. Normally, this situation would be resolved by the Executive Branch requesting additional supplemental appropriations. However, the Administration appears to have decided not to pursue this course and seeks only a partial remedy by transferring $7.3 billion to cover the shortfall in Fiscal Year 2013 OCO accounts. Specifically, the Department seeks to transfer $2.3 billion from base readiness accounts, $1.5 billion from cuts to other defense accounts, and $3.5 billion from other OCO priorities. However, even after these transfers a $3.7 billion deficit will remain. Adding to this consternation, the $3.7 billion deficit figure was only arrived at after many lower priority OCO initiatives were cut. In addition, the continued reductions in base defense accounts due to sequestration and from offsets to the OCO accounts continue to have a negative impact on multiple military personnel and procurement accounts. Also, the Administration's proposed transfer of funds to offset the OCO deficit will consume over 95 percent of the amount permitted under the law to be reallocated, leaving the Department with a limited ability to respond to other priorities. Accordingly, to act as a catalyst to resolve this issue, I offered an amendment encouraging the Administration to immediately submit to Congress an additional emergency supplemental appropriations request for Fiscal Year 2013. The amendment called for the Administration to request sufficient funds to cover all emerging OCO requirements, including the $3.7 billion deficit. My amendment also encouraged the Department to restore the cuts to the base defense accounts from which funds had been transferred to OCO accounts. Unfortunately, on a party-line vote, my amendment was not adopted. As a result, the Committee has refused to encourage the Administration to demonstrate leadership and cooperation with Congress and address emerging and critical warfighter needs through a request for additional OCO funds. This is a critical issue which must be resolved before further damage is incurred not only to the Department, but to its most important resource: the warfighter. Accordingly, I will bring my amendment to the Senate floor for further consideration. In conclusion, I have been able to incorporate a number of important initiatives into the Defense Authorization bill. However, I view this as only the beginning of my efforts, as Ranking Member, to enhance our national security and increase the capabilities of our armed forces. I look forward to working with the members of the Committee and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure an even greater number of reforms are enacted into law. James M. Inhofe. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN I voted, with most of my colleagues, in favor of passing the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Consideration of this bill should be taken up by the full Senate at the earliest opportunity to give the Department sufficient time to implement the policies contained within it and to help the Senate return to the regular order of authorizing and appropriating legislation. Congress' failure to authorize and appropriate in a timely and regular way, including the recurring use of Continuing Appropriations Resolutions, has perpetuated defense planning uncertainty, wasted untold resources and harmed national defense. The President's failure to provide constructive leadership to avert budget sequestration has likewise damaged our defense institutions; I remain deeply concerned about the impact sequester is having on the composition and operational readiness of our forces. For reasons of jurisdiction, we were unable to fully consider proposals to mitigate or nullify the automatic cuts to defense and I look forward to debating ways to solve this problem before the full Senate. The committee also chose to defer matters relating to the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. Having completed my most recent visit to the detention facility this month, I continue to believe strongly that it is in our national interest to end detention at Guantanamo, with a safe and orderly transition of the detainees to other locations. Much of the work necessary to make that happen should take place in the public eye and by the hand of the full Senate. One issue we must continue to grapple with is how the Department of Defense can most effectively reduce instances of sexual assault and ensure that offenders are held accountable. This is a problem that threatens the very fabric of our military. I believe it is an issue of defending basic human rights and one that, if left unaddressed, will undermine the readiness of our forces--particularly, the Department's ability to recruit and retain the fighting force it needs to ensure our Nation's defense. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, we faced a similar problem in dealing with the scourge of racism in the military. We addressed that issue decisively and aggressively and put in place programs and policies that helped to bring an end to a culture of racism in our military. We must do the same thing in the case of the current sexual assault crisis. I support provisions offered by members of the committee that (1) provide assistance and ease reporting for victims of alleged sexual abuse; (2) strengthen penalties for perpetrators of these crimes; (3) maintain the fundamental role of the chain-of-command in convening courts martial; (4) hold commanders accountable for the leadership climate they establish; (5) prevent sexual offenders from entering the armed services or staying in uniform; and (6) encourage the cultural change necessary for the Department of Defense to reduce and ultimately eliminate these poisonous offenses from our ranks. I hope that as this legislation is debated on the Floor of the Senate, we can continue to build on that consensus to ensure that this problem is addressed effectively and responsibly. Also, I believe that Congress' and the Department of Defense's understanding of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual assault in the military is in need of refinement. To this end, policymakers and military leaders would benefit from a survey that follows up on the Department's most recent gross estimate by, among other things, categorizing the types of reported offenses. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program continues to attract significant congressional oversight--as befits the Department of Defense's largest weapons procurement program. After years of helping to oversee how the JSF program is being managed and legislate changes to it, I am pleased to see signs that the Department may be finally containing excessive cost growth in this top defense procurement priority. In a March 2013 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) described this program as ``moving in the right direction''. On May 23, the Department of Defense released its latest JSF Selected Acquisition Report, announcing a 1.1 percent reduction in the overall program cost of the JSF--a $4.5 billion savings from the previous estimate. While these reports suggest improvements, Congress must continue to scrutinize this critically important program to ensure that they endure. In support of its oversight role, the Subcommitee on Seapower investigated a number of Navy shipbuilding and weapons program this year. Late last year, GAO reported notable but limited improvement in how effectively the Department has been able to hold down excessive cost growth in its major defense acquisition programs since the enactment of the 2009 Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act. But, the Department of Defense and the Navy continue to structure excessive concurrency between development and production into its strategies to acquire its largest weapon systems, which exposes these programs to the risk of excessive cost increases and schedule slips late in production. In some Navy ship construction programs this has been manifested in dangerously high-risk development schedules and accelerated procurement plans while delivering uncertain capabilities amidst constantly shifting requirements. The current Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is a good example of the foregoing dynamics and represents a departure from the program that was first envisioned a decade ago by Admiral Vern Clark. After having originally doubled over its original estimate, the current cost per seaframe has stabilized for the moment. But, major challenges abound that threaten whether this program will indeed be able to deliver intended combat capability. The decision to use a commercial hull has not resulted in a shortened fielding period; the two-variant seaframe acquisition has resulted in decreased commonality; and capabilities for the seaframes and mission modules are still unknown and untested. Yet, the Navy continues with the retirement of the patrol craft, frigates, and minesweepers that LCS was intended to replace. Despite the risks, the Navy plans for 52 LCS to comprise one third of the Navy's total surface combatant fleet by 2028. In addition, according to schedules provided by the Navy, by the time integrated LCS capabilities are tested--in 2019--the Navy will have procured or put under contract more than half of the total number of seaframes planned for purchase. Four reports issued in the last year have raised significant questions as to whether LCS, as currently designed, has the capabilities to meet combatant requirements for the next thirty years. An internal Navy report issued in 2012 raised fundamental questions about LCS' suitability, lethality, and survivability. A recent draft GAO report is equally critical of the program, stating that ``[n]either Congress nor the Navy can be certain that the LCS is the right system to meet the warfighter needs . . . the apparent disconnect between the LCS acquisition strategy and the needs of the end users suggest that a pause is needed.'' The Navy has spent some $12 billion on LCS to date and is planning to spend another $28 billion through 2034. At this point program we need an honest, objective look at the requirements, capabilities, and current acquisition strategy for LCS. I encourage my colleagues to consider a reporting requirement that would direct the Secretary of the Navy to submit to Congress specific certifications on LCS acquisition milestones and capabilities before being authorized to obligate funds for LCS 21 and beyond. The Ford Class Aircraft Carrier program is also at risk of significant and continued cost increases and major schedule slips. The committee approved the Navy's request to increase the statutory cost cap on the lead ship, CVN-78 with the acknowledgment that first-in-class ships often experience cost growth as new systems are designed, integrated and tested. These challenges must be overcome and contained in the first ship--not allowed to continue with subsequent ship builds. I am concerned that the Navy is rushing to put the second ship, CVN- 79, on contract before the costs of the first ship have stabilized. If allowed to continue on their current path, the Navy will put CVN-79 on a fixed-price construction contract early in the fall of 2013--before the ship has a complete design and bill of materials; before having a firm set of stable requirements; before testing critical new technologies including aircraft launch and retrieval systems and a new radar; and before the ship has an optimal build plan. This fundamentally deviates from widely-recognized commercial shipbuilding practices and would expose the program to an unreasonable risk of excessive cost growth and schedule slips. The Navy reports that design work on CVN-78 is not yet finalized, construction is 60% complete and behind schedule, critical systems testing is behind schedule, and that no integration testing has occurred. Yet, despite a great deal of residual risk and uncertainty in the lead ship, the Navy continues to plan a September 2013 multi-billion, sole source construction contract award for the second ship. This course of action would increase the likelihood of frequent change orders to the contract as technical difficulties, which should have been addressed in the first-in-class ship, have to be solved, at great expense, in the second ship. I want to ensure the cost-saving efforts proposed by the Navy in its recent report to Congress will be achieved. This can be done without delaying the delivery of CVN-79 to the fleet. I strongly encourage my colleagues to consider measures that would require the Secretary of the Navy to have a greater degree of certainty about the design and cost of CVN-78 before awarding a construction contract for CVN-79. John McCain. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE Building on its well-deserved reputation for bipartisanship in support of our men and women in uniform and American national security, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voted overwhelmingly to approve its version of the fiscal year (FY) 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In today's partisan climate in Washington, this act of bipartisanship is worth noting. While this bill is not perfect, there are several praiseworthy components in areas related to contingency contracting, military sexual assault, our attack submarine fleet, and acquisition reform. In addition to the concerns regarding the components of the bill related to Guantanamo that are highlighted in a separate additional views section, I also remain very concerned about the impact that defense sequestration is having on our men and women in uniform and our nation's military readiness. Never Contract with the Enemy The federal government has a deep moral obligation to serve as a responsible steward of the people's tax dollars. Congress must conduct rigorous oversight of federal spending to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. Especially at a time when our nation has incurred approximately $17 trillion in debt, we simply cannot afford to allow our tax dollars to be misspent. When the United States engages in contracting overseas we must ensure our tax dollars do not end up in the hands of our enemies. Our troops should never have to worry that American tax dollars are funding those with whom they are fighting on the battlefield. As we have conducted more rigorous oversight of U.S. contracting overseas, particularly where the U.S. has spent billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has become clear that acquisition laws and regulations--as well as existing oversight mechanisms within the Pentagon, the State Department, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)--are dramatically insufficient to addressing the contracting challenges. From 2002 to 2011, the Commission on Wartime Contracting conservatively estimated that $31 billion to $60 billion in contracts were lost to waste and fraud. Even worse, the Commission found that the second largest source of income for insurgents in Afghanistan has been U.S. contracting dollars. Whether through negligence or the deliberate actions of malign actors, these contracts sometimes result in taxpayer funds being diverted to our enemies. One of the reasons for this unacceptable situation was that our acquisition officials in Iraq and Afghanistan were often operating under laws and regulations that were designed for contracting in the United States during peacetime, not in Baghdad or Bagram during wartime. As a result, once we discovered that a U.S. contract was allowing money to end up in the hands of our enemies, it would take far too long to terminate the contract and end the flow of contract funds to those who were opposing the United States. In February 2011, I teamed up with Senator Scott Brown (R- MA) to introduce S. 341, The No Contracting with the Enemy Act. We then worked with SASC to include key elements of our legislation in the FY 2012 NDAA. These Section 841 and 842 authorities gave Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition officials in Afghanistan the ability to more quickly sever ties with contractors who funnel taxpayer resources to those who oppose the United States. Since December 2011, these authorities have enabled the Central Command Commander to identify four Afghan vendors and 28 entities associated with these four vendors that have been engaged in hostile activities, resulting in the termination of 10 subcontracts with foreign vendors and withholding of funds from one foreign prime contractor. These termination actions have resulted in approximately $31 million in savings. While the Section 841 and 842 authorities were a major step in the right direction, more can and should be done. To expand and enhance the authorities that were established in 2011, on April 9, 2013, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and I introduced the bipartisan S. 675, The Never Contract with the Enemy Act. I am pleased that key components of our bill are included in this Committee-approved NDAA. Among other improvements, the language in this year's bill expands these authorities to all geographic combatant commands, extends the authorities which would have expired in December 2014 until December 2018, and lowers the contract threshold from $100,000 to $20,000. I look forward to ensuring this important language is in the final NDAA. I also look forward to working with other committees and the full Senate to ensure these authorities are available to acquisition officials outside of DoD. S. 675 seeks to expand these essential authorities to acquisition officials in the entire federal government. Yet, in the SASC-approved NDAA, while we were able to expand these authorities to all geographic combatant commands within the Department of Defense, due to jurisdictional constraints, we were not able to expand these authorities to acquisition officials outside of the Department of Defense. As General Joseph Dunford, the commander of all U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, testified on April 16, 2013, it is essential that acquisition officials outside the Department of Defense possess the same authorities to quickly terminate contracts. In addition to endorsing our legislation, he testified that it will be ``critical'' that the State Department and USAID have the same authorities to cancel contracts as DoD so that we ``don't contract with the enemy.'' He said that, ``Expanding that [authority] to include non-DoD organizations makes a lot of sense.'' In addition, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) have endorsed our efforts to expand these authorities to all federal government acquisition officials operating overseas. I look forward to working with members of both parties to strengthen current laws and regulations to make sure the federal government serves as a responsible steward of our tax dollars and to ensure our resources do not end up in the hands of our enemies. Military Sexual Assault The prevalence of sexual assaults occurring in the military represents a serious threat to the honor and dignity of our men and women who serve in uniform and to the readiness and cohesion of our units. The status quo is simply unacceptable, and I am pleased that this committee has so openly and passionately discussed how to best stop sexual assaults from occurring in our military. A real solution to this growing problem is past due. I believe we have developed a strong and appropriate legislative response to aggressively combat this issue, including reforms to the legal framework under which these crimes are prosecuted and providing additional protections and resources to victims of these terrible crimes. I am pleased that the bill incorporates several key provisions of S. 871, The Combating Military Sexual Assault Act, which I coauthored with Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and which has more than 37 cosponsors. Our provisions, which were included in the SASC-approved bill, will provide sexual assault victims in all military branches with Special Victims' Counsel (SVC)--a trained military lawyer to guide a victim through the legal process. Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh testified before this committee that responses of victims in the Air Force's SVC pilot program have been ``overwhelmingly positive.'' Furthermore, Chairman Martin Dempsey supports ``providing victims of sexual assault this important resource.'' The defense bill includes our provisions that enhance responsibilities for the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and provide Sexual Assault Response Coordinators to members of the National Guard and Reserve. In addition, I was a cosponsor of Chairman Carl Levin's (D- MI) amendment, which modifies the disposition authority in cases of certain sex-related crimes. The Chairman's amendment provides for the review of a convening authority's (CA's) decision not to take charges of certain sexual offenses to trial by court-martial in all instances--both when a staff Judge Advocate General (JAG) recommends that such charges be taken to trial by court-martial and when a staff JAG recommends that such charges not be taken to trial by court-martial. In other words, a decision not to take charges of sexual offenses to trial by court-martial will always be reviewed by a higher authority, in some instances by the civilian Secretary of the military department concerned. Such involvement and oversight by higher authorities is appropriate given the severity of the sexual assault crisis in our military. Further, Chairman Levin's amendment prohibits retaliation against a member of the Armed Forces for reporting a criminal offense, which is particularly important given that 62 percent of victims who have made reports of sexual offenses also report experiencing some form of retaliation for doing so. The amendment also expresses the Sense of the Senate that commanding officers are responsible for establishing a command climate in which a victim should feel safe reporting a crime, and that failure to establish such an environment is an appropriate basis for relief from command positions. Senior officers should evaluate commanding officers based on their performance in establishing such a command climate. We must tackle this problem from multiple fronts and change the culture of our military with respect to sexual assault. We must deter such behavior in the first place while simultaneously ensuring victim support in the event such a crime is committed. Our military leaders must translate zero tolerance rhetoric into zero tolerance policy and practice. I am hopeful that the significant changes to current law contained in this bill will empower victims to come forward to report crimes so that they can receive the care and justice they need and deserve. In addition to preventing such crimes and appropriately punishing those who commit them, we must focus on the victims and empower them with the care, resources, and confidence they need to overcome the mental and physical consequences of such a crime--crimes of power and control. We must help them to restore their own sense of power and control. To be clear, Congress will not pass this year's defense bill, hope for the best, and then lose interest. Members of this committee are united in our determination to address the scourge of sexual assault in the military. We will continue to demand the best from our military leaders. We will continue to exercise the oversight that the American people demand. As the service chiefs testified before this committee, the chain of command is crucial to fixing this problem. Rest assured that we will hold them accountable, and we will continue to exercise aggressive oversight to ensure our men and women can serve in an environment free of sexual assault that allows them to focus on accomplishing their missions. Attack Submarine Fleet As anti-access/area denial threats to our forces grow, the Virginia Class submarine provides the U.S. military an essential capability. Yet, as Admiral Mark Ferguson testified on April 18, 2013, the Navy is only able to meet ``about half'' of combatant commander requests for attack submarines. Ensuring our combatant commanders have a sufficient number of attack submarines will become even more important as U.S. strategic interests demand an increased focus on the maritime- dominated Asia Pacific region, as well as the Persian Gulf. As Los Angeles Class submarines reach the end of their service life, if we don't build enough Virginia Class submarines, the Navy's ability to meet combatant commander requirements for attack submarines will decline even further. For these reasons, building on our work from last year, I am pleased that this bill authorizes and supports the administration's request to build two Virginia Class submarines in FY 2014. The construction of a second Virginia Class submarine next fiscal year, as well as moving forward on the Virginia Payload Module, will help ensure that U.S. naval supremacy--which serves as an essential guarantor of U.S. economic and national security interests--will continue well into the future. MEADS: Ending the Missile to Nowhere I am encouraged that the Committee adopted my provision to prohibit any spending in FY 2014 on the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). Between FY 2004 and FY 2011, the U.S. spent almost $3 billion on MEADS. With $17 trillion in national debt, we cannot afford to spend another cent on a weapons system that DoD has no intention of procuring. On March 23, 2013, during consideration of the budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 8), the Senate overwhelmingly approved (94 to 5) my amendment (S. AMDT. 136) aimed at scrapping money for MEADS in FY 2014. Echoing the clear position of the overwhelming majority of the Senate, in a letter to me on June 12, 2013, The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall reiterated that the ``Department views the FY 2013 funds for the MEADS program as the final obligation'' and that additional U.S. funding for MEADS is ``not required and was not included in the President's FY 2014 Budget Submission.'' Secretary Kendall also confirmed that the ``Department has no plan for or intention of requesting additional MEADS funding.'' The prohibition in the SASC-approved NDAA makes clear that this Committee is opposed to any additional funding in FY 2014 for MEADS. At a time when Congress is struggling to provide the resources needed to maintain the readiness of our forces, as Secretary Kendall wrote in his letter to me, we must avoid ``spending that is not needed.'' Reducing Costly Pentagon Redundancy I am pleased that the report language accompanying the SASC-approved NDAA includes my provisions related to duplication in ground radar programs and air-to-ground rocket and missile programs. Our nation's fiscal crisis and increasingly constrained defense budgets require that the Pentagon look for every opportunity to develop joint programs and reduce costs, while meeting valid service requirements. I look forward to reviewing closely the findings of the Comptroller General of the General Accountability Office in order to determine whether the Pentagon could consolidate requirements, reduce redundancy, develop joint programs, and save money in its ground radar and air-to-ground rocket and missile programs. Sequestration: A Threat to Our Military Readiness While the NDAA passed by the Committee seeks to maintain the readiness of our forces, I remain seriously concerned about the impact of sequestration and budget uncertainty on our military readiness. I worry that some members of Congress think sequestration is acceptable or even desirable. We should be clear: at a time of enormous national security challenges in places such as North Korea, Iran, and Syria, sequestration represents an avoidable, irresponsible, and dangerous policy. Friends and potential enemies alike are watching. We must do everything possible to retain the most powerful military in the world so that there will be no doubt that the United States is capable of protecting our interests and those of our allies. If we allow defense sequestration to continue, the deterrence of our potential enemies and assurance of our allies provided by our military readiness will deteriorate over time. The impacts of defense sequestration will eat away at our strategic depth and military capability--inviting aggressors to take greater risk, increasing the likelihood of conflict, and making Americans less safe. For these reasons, as I have for over a year and a half, I stand ready to work with members of both parties to identify alternative spending reductions to end defense sequestration once and for all. Kelly Ayotte. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. VITTER The Committee's mark-up reflects the first major step in the FY14 National Defense Authorization Act process for the Department of Defense. The NDAA will next be considered by the full Senate and then conference with the House of Representatives. However, this bill as written, while it includes vital funding priorities, unfortunately ignores sequestration and the Budget Control Act, which means that many of these programs will face further unstructured cuts. While it has been argued that there is hope of an agreement before the NDAA is considered by the full Senate or conference with the House of Representatives, I believe it is imperative to set appropriate authorization and serious levels that do not place significant funding priorities in limbo. The FY 2014 budget request for the Department of Defense comes at a very challenging time with a unique set of global threats; however, that does not substitute the need to comply with the current law or include real guidance for priority decisions. Drafting measures that do not adhere to the Budget Control Act (BCA) and its sequester levels is tantamount to failure. The failure does not rest with the Senate or with the House; that failure is due to the Department of Defense and the Administration's inability to adequately prioritize and communicate those priorities. Previously, the Administration forced the Military Services to hold off on providing any clarity or reports on the impacts of sequester. Reports have surfaced\1\ that the White House Office of Management and Budget had instructed three separate cabinet agencies that they were not allowed to talk about pending budget cuts unless they cleared their remarks first with the White House budget office. This led Senator Barbara Mikulski to state that the White House had placed its own cabinet agencies under a ``gag order'' and, ultimately, to the December 5, 2012 OMB decision to direct\2\ the Pentagon to start sequestration planning. After eighteen months of requests by members of this committee and two separate legislative requirements, the White House finally released a report\3\ in January 2013 on the harmful impacts of sequester, providing the detail requested only two to three weeks before sequester was set to hit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/cabinet-under-gag-order- on-sequester-87231.html \2\http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118712 \3\http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/08/fact- sheet-examples-how-sequester-would-impact-middle-class-families-job --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that the DOD is preparing to drastically reduce its personnel size and restructure its forces over the next years, it is critical that it budget or identify where the Department is able to cut while maintaining its primary purpose: maintaining a ready and capable force prepared for defense of the nation. Allowing arguments that the budget must go beyond the BCA and sequester levels due to mismanagement, overruns, and DOD shortfalls, would only continue the uncertainty and does nothing to solve the problem at hand. Analysts largely agree that the DOD budget request was irrelevant because it did not factor in the BCA levels, did not contain an OCO Budget (numbers which we now know included huge shortfalls and continue to expand), and ignored the sequester even while it was delayed for a month to ``account for sequester''. Our military desperately needs leadership to put forth a defense budget that addresses the unprecedented challenges before us and the budget crisis here at home. Despite its stated need, the Defense Department is currently facing a hugely disproportionate amount of the cuts, and the President continues to submit a budget plan that will perpetuate increases in federal debt due to non-defense spending over the next ten years instead of trying to cut through non-defense. Our military men and women must not be the sole bearer of balancing our budget. In fact, during the FY14 NDAA committee markup when Senator Inhofe tried to address the budget problem through an amendment that would have partially offset the sequester in a way previously accepted by the President during negotiations\4\, Senator Levin did not allow him to bring up his proposal for debate during the markup process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi- protections --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my view, this signifies Administration and Senate majority leadership refusing to address the truth about our budget crisis. Unless President Obama, our Commander in Chief, provides the necessary leadership to protect the Defense Department from disproportionate cuts, there is a present and clear danger (from sequester, the law of the land) that the funding for this mark will be reduced. The current mode of operation in Washington appears to be to backload on defense plans and place the costs and shortfalls on future generations. That mentality is not something I can support. David Vitter. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. INHOFE, SESSIONS, CHAMBLISS, WICKER, MS. AYOTTE, MRS. FISCHER, AND MESSRS. VITTER, BLUNT, AND CRUZ Guantanamo Bay Detainees The U.S. detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, provides a secure location to detain and interrogate enemy combatants as well as prevent these detainees from returning to the battlefield. Holding these detainees at Guantanamo Bay has enabled the U.S. to gather intelligence which has prevented additional attacks on our country and assisted in tracking down other members of al Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, this year's Senate Defense Authorization bill creates large loopholes which, if enacted, will result in the transfer of detainees to the shores of our country and permits the easier conveyance of detainees to foreign countries. Let there be no mistake, the bill's provisions are a fundamental shift from previous years' Defense Authorization Acts which ensured detainees would not be brought to the United States and would not be transferred to other countries unless reasonable conditions could be met. Accordingly, we will resolutely oppose the inclusion of these sections in the final Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. Previously, Congress had addressed this issue through legislative compromises which: prevented the transfer of detainees to the United States; blocked the construction or modification of facilities to house detainees in the United States; and required stringent certifications to be made before transferring detainees to foreign nations. These statutes were built upon a bipartisan consensus, consistent with public opinion, which was formed after years of congressional debate and were written to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. The previous legislation contrasts greatly from the provisions included in this year's Senate Defense Authorization bill. Specifically, the bill permits the transfer of detainees to the U.S. for trial and detention and to receive medical care, despite Guantanamo Bay's first rate medical care and facilities. In addition, due to the Administration's objections that the current certifications were too difficult to meet, the bill greatly reduces the thresholds required before a detainee can be transferred to a foreign country. The proposal to transfer detainees to the U.S. for trial and detention does not take into account one of the primary reasons why the bipartisan consensus arose in the first place. Specifically, Congress and many Americans disagreed with the Administration's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, and others in a federal courthouse located in New York City. This was reflected by the Senate's 54-41 vote in November 2012, which supported a permanent prohibition on the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States. Why then should the Senate so quickly reverse itself and enact legislation which permits the very thing so many of our citizens considered the wrong thing to do? In addition, why should we reduce the thresholds for transferring detainees to foreign countries as called for in this year's Defense Authorization bill? According to a March 2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence, 28 percent of those detainees who have been released continue, or are suspected to have continued, to engage in terrorist activity against the U.S. or our allies. For example, after Said al Shihri was released from Guantanamo Bay, he became one of the senior leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Why then should we lower the standards? This is especially true since current law, specifically, Section 1028 of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, requires strict but reasonable certifications before transferring detainees to foreign countries. Adding to the perplexing nature of the bill's provisions is the fact that housing detainees in the U.S. will cost millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, more during this period of budget austerity and sequestration. As FBI Director Robert Mueller warned, these detainees cannot be placed in normal federal prisons since there is the very real possibility these individuals will recruit more terrorists from among the federal inmate population and attempt to continue al Qaeda operations. One must remember this is precisely how the individuals convicted in the 2009 plot to bomb a New York synagogue were radicalized. The risk of bringing detainees to the United States contrasts sharply with the advantages of continuing the use of the detainee complexes at Guantanamo Bay. The facilities at Guantanamo Bay are in a secure location away from population centers. They provide the maximum security required to prevent escape and are composed of multiple levels of confinement based upon the detainee's compliance. In addition, the Expeditionary Legal Complex has recently been completed. This facility is a secure location to try detainees while enabling their access to defense counsel and also assists in preventing the compromise of classified material. The Complex will also permit greater coverage by the press of the legal proceedings. The logic of continuing to utilize the established facilities at Guantanamo Bay also contrasts with the apparent lack of an in-depth, comprehensive plan by the Administration to address the enormous security, logistical, and legal issues which must be resolved before any detainee's transfer to the United States is even contemplated. In addition, the Administration's unwillingness to place new detainees in Guantanamo Bay has forced our armed forces to use makeshift detention facilities. For example, due to the Administration's reluctance to use Guantanamo Bay, Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame was detained and interrogated on a U.S. Navy ship for two months. Clearly, what is required is a plan for the long-term, law of war detention outside of the United States for foreign members of al Qaeda and associated forces, as called for by Senator Ayotte, Senator Chambliss, and others. Those of us who voted for the National Defense Authorization Act in Committee did so based on the agreement that we will have an opportunity to address these major shortcomings in the bill when the full Senate considers the legislation. We look forward to doing so. In conclusion, we are opposed to the provisions included in the Senate's version of the Defense Authorization bill which, if enacted, will permit the transfer of detainees to our country. Most disappointingly, this represents a fundamental departure from previous years' Defense Authorization Acts. Accordingly, we will seek legislative remedies to restore the statutes which will maintain the current law with respect to the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees. James M. Inhofe. Jeff Sessions. Saxby Chambliss. Roger F. Wicker. Kelly Ayotte. Deb Fischer. David Vitter. Roy Blunt. Ted Cruz. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. INHOFE AND SESSIONS, MS. AYOTTE, MRS. FISCHER, AND MR. VITTER Missile Defense The Committee's direction to deploy an X-band radar, or comparable sensor, for the defense of the homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats is a good first step toward addressing the growing ICBM threat from Iran and, potentially, other countries. But it does not go far enough: we also need to proceed as soon as possible with the deployment of an additional interceptor site on the east coast to compensate for the loss of the planned third interceptor site in Poland. The decision by the President not to proceed with development and deployment of the SM-3 block IIB missile in Poland means that the defense of the homeland against Iranian long-range ballistic missiles will not be as effective as originally intended. Missile defense planners in the Pentagon have long understood the advantages provided by an additional missile defense site (beyond those in Alaska and California) for a more effective defense against long range ballistic missile threats from the Middle East. The approach taken by the Bush Administration was to deploy 10 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) in Poland. The Obama Administration opted, instead, for the development and deployment of some 24 SM-3 block IIB missiles in Poland. Both of these options would serve the similar purpose of defending Europe and the United States against intermediate to long-range Iranian ballistic missiles. The Administration's rationale for the 15 March announcement to deploy an additional 14 GBIs in Alaska, beyond the current 30, is ``to stay ahead of the long-range ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea and Iran.''\5\ According to DoD, the North Korean threat is growing faster than anticipated: North Korea conducted its third nuclear test in February, has displayed road-mobile ICBMs, and has demonstrated long-range missile technology through its launch of the Taepo Dong-2 rocket, which put a satellite in orbit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\DoD Fact Sheet, ``Strengthening Homeland Missile Defense,'' March 15, 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A DoD Fact Sheet notes similar developments in Iran: ``Iran also continues to advance its space-launch and longer-range ballistic missile capabilities. Iran has used a space-launch vehicle, the Safir-2, to place a satellite in orbit, demonstrating some of the key technologies required for ICBM development.'' Likewise, General Jacoby, the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, recently told Congress that ``we should consider that Iran has a capability within the next few years of flight testing ICBM capable technologies\6\;'' and that ``the Iranians are intent on developing an ICBM.\7\'' Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified before this committee on April 18th, that ``The Iranians are pursuing development of two systems that potentially could have intercontinental capability . . . The belief is about the first time they'd be ready to do that would be as early as 2015.''\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\SASC Hearing, March 19, 2013 \7\HASC Hearing, March 20, 2013 \8\SASC Hearing, April 18, 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the rationale for beefing up our defenses against North Korea is based on that nation's nuclear ambitions coupled with advances in long-range missile technology (derived from the ability to launch satellites), then this similarly argues for strengthening our defenses against Iran--a country that also has demonstrated a space launch capability and appears to be nearing a nuclear weapons capability. Increasing the numbers of Ground Based Interceptors in Alaska, as the administration proposes, while sound, is not sufficient. There are inherent limitations of the Alaska and California sites. U.S. Strategic Command head, General Robert Kehler, told Congress that ``I am confident that we can defend against a limited attack from Iran, although we are not in the most optimum posture to do that today doesn't provide total defense today.''\9\ General Jacoby affirmed this when he told Congress: We have the capability of limited defense right now. And I think that it's not optimum and I think that we've made some important steps forward in what was rolled out. And I think we need to continue to assess the threat and make sure we stay ahead of it.''\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\SASC Hearing, March 12, 2013 \10\SASC Hearing , March 19, 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- An additional homeland missile defense site on the East Coast would raise the probability of successfully engaging Iranian threats and preserve GBI inventory in Alaska for North Korean threats. A study conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academies explains: ``While it is kinematically possible to defend the eastern part of the continental United States (CONUS) against threat ICBMs from the Middle East using GBI sites at Fort Greely and Vandenberg, AFB, an additional GBI site located in northeastern CONUS would be much more effective and reliable and would allow considerably more battle space and firing doctrine options.''\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\National Research Council, ``Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense,'' Washington, D.C., 2012, p.85. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Jacoby explained this to Congress in similar terms: ``What a third site gives me, whether it's on the East Coast or an alternate location, would be increased battle space; that means increased opportunity for me to engage threats from either Iran or North Korea.''\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\SASC Hearing, March 19, 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``I would agree that a third site, wherever the decision is to build a third site, would give me better weapons access, increased GBI inventory and allow us the battle space to more optimize our defense against future threats from Iran and North Korea.''\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\HASC Hearing, March 20, 2013 Though acknowledging the potential advantages provided by an East Coast site, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Dr. James Miller, told Congressional staff in March that the additional 14 GBIs in Alaska could compensate for the termination of the SM-3 Block IIB missile (``which was designed to provide a first shot at any Iranian missile that could be coming towards the United States.''\14\). However, as noted by Generals Jacoby and Kehler (and by the National Research Council), this approach is not optimal. Rather than defend the United States only from Alaska, an east coast missile defense site would increase the probability of successfully engaging an Iranian threat by providing increased battle space, multiple shot opportunities, and different angles of attack, supported by different sensors. Moreover, if those additional 14 missiles are needed to defend against a growing threat from North Korea, which is the Administration's rationale for deploying them,\15\ those weapons may not be available in a scenario where the U.S. is threatened simultaneously by Iran and North Korea. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\Words of General Jacoby, HASC hearing, March 20, 2013) \15\DoD Spokesman said on March 26, 2013: ``The decision to place additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska is really in large measure to growing North Korean threats and the development of their own missile programs. It's very clear.'' U.S. Takes N. Korea Threats very seriously,'' AFP, March 26, 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding the cost of an east coast missile defense site, it is hard for the administration to argue it can't afford an east coast site when the budget of the Missile Defense Agency has seen drastic cuts over the past few years. The President's 5-year spending plan for MDA for FY2012-2016 amounted to $43.5 billion; for the five year plan from FY 2014-2018, that amount declined by $5.9 billion to $37.6 billion. Moreover, the cancelation of the SM-3 block IIB missile and the Precision Tracking Space System by the President means that MDA avoids some $3.5 billion in spending over the next five years. Had those savings been returned to the Missile Defense Agency, there would have been ample funding for an East Coast site. The administration is conducting environmental impact studies for three potential locations, as directed by the FY 2013 NDAA (due by December 31, 2013). The provision (Sec. 227) also requires the MDA to develop a contingency plan in case the president determines to proceed with such an additional deployment. While these studies will determine the optimal location for an additional homeland missile defense site, we need not await this analysis before determining whether such a deployment is in the interests of the United States. There remains a presidentially directed requirement for a missile defense site--beyond the sites in Alaska and California--explicitly for the defense of the homeland. With the cancelation of the SM-3 block IIB missile (intended for Poland), that requirement remains unmet. An east coast missile defense site can meet that need and should proceed as expeditiously as possible. An east coast missile defense site would provide important additional protection against an Iranian ICBM inbound for the east coast of the United States that the U.S. currently does not have and that 14 additional ground based interceptors in Alaska will not provide. If we start today, there will be a 3-4 year gap between the potential emergence of this Iranian capability and our ability to have this needed additional protection. We do not need more delay. The intercontinental ballistic missile threat from Iran is emerging quickly, and the protection of the east coast of the United States against this threat must be improved. If we fail to move ahead with an east coast missile defense site expeditiously, we are placing the nation at more risk than can be justified. James M. Inhofe. Jeff Sessions. Kelly Ayotte. Deb Fischer. David Vitter.